A health care question...

Epignosis wrote: A basic localized health care system is,  I guess, a moderate view.  I swing hard right on most things, but I in earnest think our health care is too expensive, but it's not because of greedy doctors or evil corporations (that's one popular reductive fallacy).  We need a combination of tort reform (first), so that doctors can lower their fees (and afford to be competitive rather than hamstrung because of malpractice insurance), and then I think we could explore letting local governments manage a health care system that would benefit whomever needed basic care (instead of being told, "Your child just has a ______; it will go away in a few days on its own.  That will be $200").

That's why I think we should expand access to nurse practitioners. They charge a whole lot less and perfectly competent, especially for little things. Let the doctors worry about brain surgery and broken bones. Nurses can handle everyday illnesses for much less money. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a stigma against them. "I'm not taking my child to a nurse! I demand a real doctor!."

well 'genes' in a rhetorical way, but yes, 'tradition' or 'culture' would probably be better terms

The T wrote: People should not be afraid of calling things their true name. I don't know why but Socialism is a word that people in the US fear more than homicide, pedophilia or satanism. Why? I don't know. I'm sure it's all in the country's genes. It would take too much time and effort to answer that.

no that's exactly what it is: genes--  we have a tradition (a very young one) of fierce personal independence, partly because it was necessary to survive and thrive in such a huge, undeveloped country (I'm sure this is true other places too, as Australia)..it explains the role of guns in US culture as well as an abhorrence to something like Socialism

People should not be afraid of calling things their true name. I don't know why but Socialism is a word that people in the US fear more than homicide, pedophilia or satanism. Why? I don't know. I'm sure it's all in the country's genes. It would take too much time and effort to answer that. 

^^ATF

ClemofNazareth wrote: Epignosis wrote: Easy Money wrote: ^ if it is true, than it's fairly similar to most existing laws concerning car insurance. As I mentioned before, auto insurance is a law (and should be a law) because driving potentially endangers others.  If we run into another car, and it's our fault, we have insurance to pay for the damages and medical expenses of the other party. True, but your car insurance doesn't prevent danger to others, it simply provides funds to pay if they are injured.  Following the same logic, if you are ill and become hospitalized and can't pay for it, the cost burden is generally borne by the rest of us in the form of either higher hospital charges for us to offset your costs, or by having your expenses paid for by government funds (Medicare, Medicaid, an indigent program, etc.). IMHO this is really little different than other community expenses like police and fire departments.  Can you imagine a society where only those who houses burn down are asked to pay the cost of the fire department, or only those who have been victimized by a crime are asked to pay for the police?

Precisely why very early in this thread I proposed basic localized health care systems (we don't have a national police or fire department, do we?), which in turn would minimalize the role of health insurance altogether.

Epignosis wrote: Easy Money wrote: ^ if it is true, than it's fairly similar to most existing laws concerning car insurance. As I mentioned before, auto insurance is a law (and should be a law) because driving potentially endangers others.  If we run into another car, and it's our fault, we have insurance to pay for the damages and medical expenses of the other party.

True, but your car insurance doesn't prevent danger to others, it simply provides funds to pay if they are injured.  Following the same logic, if you are ill and become hospitalized and can't pay for it, the cost burden is generally borne by the rest of us in the form of either higher hospital charges for us to offset your costs, or by having your expenses paid for by government funds (Medicare, Medicaid, an indigent program, etc.).

IMHO this is really little different than other community expenses like police and fire departments.  Can you imagine a society where only those who houses burn down are asked to pay the cost of the fire department, or only those who have been victimized by a crime are asked to pay for the police?

While generally in favor of health care reform, if it is truly reform, i.e. a single payer system, I have to agree with some of our more conservative friends on the issue of whether we should have to pay for health care if we don't want it.  And here's why.  I live currently in Germany, where health insurance is mandatory.  However, I'm self-employed, which means I don't qualify for the government run health care system, which would be relatively cheap (16% of my income) and it would cover everything.  Because I'm self-employed, I can't take part in the wonderful government run health system (and I say this without a bit of sarcasm).  I wish I could join the system, but I'm still required to buy health insurance.  Private health insurance.    I have a pre-existing condition, two in fact (blood pressure and asthma).  That means I get to either pay around 500 Euro a month (well over 16% of my income) or I can pay about 200 Euro a month for coverage which excludes my pre-existing conditions (which basically means I have to piss my money away on something I can't use).  Mandatory health insurance without a single-payer system is wrong. 

Edited by The Doctor - March 21 2010 at 15:54

Easy Money wrote: ^ 'now there you go again' (Reagan) acting like our government is some sort of invading entity, in a Republic/Democracy the 'government' is you and me.

So then no one has a reason to complain about anything regarding the government, huh?

^ 'now there you go again' (Reagan) acting like our government is some sort of invading entity, in a Republic/Democracy the 'government' is you and me.

Edited by Easy Money - March 21 2010 at 15:22