Another reason entitlements need to go bye-bye

[Silmiril]

The idea of helping out someone who is down on their luck has great appeal. Who want to see starving people dying of preventable diseases in the US. Surely a free national health system is the answer to the hordes of people suffering and dying for lack of access to decent medical care. How dare those greedy drug companies, medical equipment companies, doctors and hospitals acutally make a profit! Not to mention the greedy insurance companies that do everything to deny health care. They should all be disbanded and the Federal Government should take control and nationalize all health care industries! Evil Profit should not be allowed!

That idea sounds great in principle but I have some questions for you. How many new drugs or new medical devices were invented by those countries that provide medical care? How about the new medical procedure that are invented in the US by those greedy for profit doctors? The majority of research is done by for profit companies. Are you willing to give up advanced medical research so there is no profit to be made in medicine? Did the Federal Government map the human geonome? Wasn't the for profit medical establishment responsible for coming up with effective drugs and treatments for childhood leukemia for example that would have killed my niece 10 years ago?

The whole internet line and DARPA is the most mis-used example I can think of. How much research do you think the employees of DARPA do. Basically none. They create research grants to companies like the one I used to work for to do their research. Was DARPA responsible for the way the internet became popular or was it the for profit compaines the created content that people wanted to use? Oooooh evil profitsssssss!!!

The DoE is one of the most screwed up companies in the entire government. They are the worst example of any government agency you could have picked are are probably the most disfunctional agency in the entire US Government. I suggest you do some research on the Hanford, Washington facility, or the numerious other Superfund sites they are in charge of cleaning up. And they have nothing to do with regulating your power company even if it is a nuclear plant (try NRC for the nuclear plant and your state government for other types power plants). And ask Southern Maryland and Washington DC residents how well their Governments are regulating Pepco btw. They would tell you but they are probably sitting in the dark due to another power outage.

Oh and please tell Japan that their health care system that is based on for profit hospitals and doctors doesn't work and they need to completly nationalize their health care system quick. It really cracks me up how many people who are for free health care, and against profits, talk about them all the time and they don't know what kind of system they actually have.

So you would say that TSA is well run and is a model agency right? I mean it is a federal agency. Imagine how well they would run your health care.

How about Vetreran Hospitals or military doctors? I am not talking about the surgeons that treat the battlefield injuries. I grew up in a miltary family and know how bad the doctors were in the 70's and 80's. My father is a retired Naval Officer. The surgeons were good but the regular doctors like Internists were horrible.

I am not saying that the government is evil and that it isn't necessary. To think that it would be better because there is no profit involved is niave (sp?) at best. The problem is you still have people making decisions that may not be any better than someone trying to make a profit. Decisions are made by all using all kinds of motivations. And since in the Federal Government you won't be held accountable for any stupid boneheaded decision you make, it makes it even worse.

I have worked for companies that have provided IT services to Federal Agencies and the DoD for most of the past 20+ years. I have seen the waste, fraud, and stupid decisions first hand. I don't what them anywhere near making decisions about my health.

Silmiril

[deakolt]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Social security was meant to be a supplemental income supply to be used with your retirement. However, the majority of Americans don't put 10 to 15% of their paycheck in a retirement account or invest their money at all.

many people live off social security.

[Loke]

The confusion in this thread comes from the fact that so many people are arguing so many different topics. We've talked about regulation, govt healthcare, etc. Whenever issues like this get brought up everyone argues from their own perspective and often one person will be arguing economics while the other is arguing politics. A prime example is this notion that economic freedom and social programs are mutual exclusive ideas, which they aren't. In fact, a lot of countries that have socialized healthcare, Switzerland for example, have far less govt intervention in the economy, yet still provide healthcare for their citizens.

If you want to argue the virtues of govt healthcare, do so. If you want to argue economics, go for it. But when you bunch them all together we get so polarized that everyone feels it is this all or nothing proposition, that if you admit for examples, govt regulation often leads to the creation of artificial barriers of entry - that you must also admit that socialized healthcare is a bad idea, which simply isn't the case.

I'm just as guilty of it as the rest of you, since it is really easy to get side tracked on another issue you're passionate about. Simply put, if one person arguing for socialized healthcare and another is arguing about economic theory - they're never going to get anywhere because they're focusing on two drastically different topics.

"I woke up this morning and watched the weather channel, thus Austrian Economics is flawed..." doesn't really work out so well as an argument.

[Harrison]

http://www.google.com/search?source=...0l0l0l0l0l0ll0

It was word for word copy pasted. Lol what a tool

[Daldolma]

It's a smug post that doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. Yes, the government is inextricably involved in every aspect of our daily lives. So is the private sector. The devil, as always, is in the details. The government regulates our food, but it doesn't grow it or cook it. That's left to the private sector. Nobody would want the government to take over the duty of growing and cooking our food for us.

I see both sides of the argument as it relates to healthcare. Yes, in a civilized society, everyone should be granted access to healthcare if they are in need. You shouldn't need to provide bank account numbers and credit reports in order to receive medical treatment. But what healthcare plan could feasibly provide for 300,000,000 people? What evidence exists that government is capable of providing quality healthcare for that many people? And what if you want better treatment than is available to the general public? What if you, through your own success, can afford an extremely expensive and possibly experimental treatment that could potentially save your life? Why should you be limited because you're not the national mean?

At the same time, fully privatizing healthcare clearly doesn't work. It's not profitable to ensure someone in their 60s with a history of medical issues, but those people need health insurance more than anyone. It's also backward-minded to incentivize treatment and evasion of coverage.

It's a legitimate dilemma. There's no easy solution, and most sides of the argument are at least somewhat valid. It's not all stupidity and corruption.

[choklo]

One thing that would help is campaign finance reform. If the crooks in congress didn't need so much money to be reelected, they wouldn't be as easily bribed by large corporations like insurance companies and big oil. They know who is keeping them in office, and will continue to do what it takes to stay elected.

[Asher]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But what healthcare plan could feasibly provide for 300,000,000 people? What evidence exists that government is capable of providing quality healthcare for that many people? And what if you want better treatment than is available to the general public? What if you, through your own success, can afford an extremely expensive and possibly experimental treatment that could potentially save your life? Why should you be limited because you're not the national mean?

I hate to repeat what barkingturtle has already said, but is the answer of "it is too hard" an answer we should accept? I don't care how many people are in this country. It is a critical function of our society to be healthy and IMO the government's job of making it work.

I am not against the private industry getting involved and offering a higher level of service if there is a market for that type of healthcare.

I would like to see all the middlemen in the health insurance industry disappear. There is just way too much overhead.

Everyone complains they want the government out of their healthcare. I want the insurance industry out of mine. If my doctor says I need something then I should get it, I don't care if the insurance industry thinks it is experimental or not. They are not my doctor and their opinion is not based on my best interest it is based on their bottom line.

Asher

[purist]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Harrison]

Is purist really going to use image macros and copy/pastes to argue "his" opinion?

You're a pathetic sillyputty bitch with no ideas, opinions, or valid arguments of your own. (Or valid arguments of others, because image macro rhetoric is hardly an argument...lol tool)

[Hailto]

^ +1