And I *MEAN* what the icon says

[trinityvixen]

I really, really really hope they get the numbers in the House to override the Shrub's veto on this.

A sure sign this country is going to Hell? Dubya can say this:

“It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three persons that would subscribe to the new expanded Schip would leave private insurance,” the president said.

and this:

that it would steer the program...toward covering children from middle-class families.

...and make it sound like a bad thing. Yes, because god forbid the few middle class people who truly exist (not the six-figure types who have to make that much to afford the "middle class life" as was) not be worried about keeping their children healthy. You know, covering their kids doesn't mean that they aren't still at the mercy of their employer and the benefits provided through their jobs. You will not have the ignorant masses getting uppity with the bosses when their own health could still suffer if they were to lose said jobs. They will still worry about that; they just want not to have to worry about their children suffering for it.

Fucking Bush. This is the guy who really cares about TEH BEBBIEZ and he does this? Shit-eating motherfucker. GET AN INOPERABLE CANCER AND DIE. Preferably after, somehow, losing the INSURANCE FOR LIFE you've gotten for being the WORST president pretty much ever.

Comments

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Most of this is just a straight ideological divide--I oppose redistribution of wealth, you don't--but let's deal with one thing:

And it's not as if private insurance were really so wonderful. They're often horrid. If the government would actually commit one-hundred-percent to getting all Americans health care, they could use the weight of the entire fucking government to stop HMOs and other service providers from dicking around health-care consumers (aka PEOPLE), there'd be better feelings all around and healthier people to show for it.

One thing I don't understand about the left is this idea that the government is perfectly competent when running massive welfare programs, but can't tie its own shoes when running a war. Yes, the government could in theory be a wonderful health care provider, but since it would have no real competition and maybe 1% of voters actually vote on "the government manages health care competently", I'm not optimistic.

However, when the alternative is telling sick people, "Fuck you for being sick, enjoy being forever poor and in debt!" I have a hard time sympathizing with the anti-state-health-care crowd.

We right-wingers aren't completely heartless; we just believe that the solution to our overregulated, inefficient system isn't more regulation and more government inefficiencies. One of the best things the federal government could do would be to open health insurance to interstate competition. A lot of those 45 million uninsured have no need for expensive, all-inclusive health care plans, but they really do need catastrophic health care coverage. Thanks to various state regulations, there is no health insurance equivalent of, say, Progressive and Geico. Let people buy the health insurance they need, rather than having the government buy the health insurance that people don't need, typically using a large chunk of my money. A Romney-esque plan that required everyone to have some form of catastrophic health care insurance coupled with freeing up the insurance market would go a long way to cutting the danger of middle class bankruptcy due to health care crisis (which is, incidentally, a much smaller problem than Michael Moore would have you believe).

As for debt; the solution to that involved not changing the bankruptcy laws to be about as pro-creditor as possible. But that's a whole different argument.

Anyways, we're just skeptical that the government is going to be more competent governing health insurance than private companies are. It's a well-founded skepticism.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Anyways, we're just skeptical that the government is going to be more competent governing health insurance than private companies are. It's a well-founded skepticism.

Sorry, but no. There is simply no good evidence that privately-managed health care systems are inherently more efficient than government-run health services. None. Zero. Of course you will say that inefficiencies in the American system are due to government regulation and subsidy, but that's just a cop out: "Ignore all the evidence that government-provided health insurance is both more just and more efficient than the American system; the libertarian utopia in my head is much better than both!"

One thing I don't understand about the left is this idea that the government is perfectly competent when running massive welfare programs, but can't tie its own shoes when running a war.

Uh, no. Government is much better at "running a war" than the private sector is. Left wingers believe this far more strongly than (say) the Bush administration, which thinks that outsourcing the Iraq war to private mercenaries was a dandy idea.

Liberals believe that some functions are better left to government, and others to the private sector. Conservatives, not liberals, are the inflexible ideologues who believe that one is always superior to the other.

[edgehopper.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but no. There is simply no good evidence that privately-managed health care systems are inherently more efficient than government-run health services. None. Zero. Of course you will say that inefficiencies in the American system are due to government regulation and subsidy, but that's just a cop out: "Ignore all the evidence that government-provided health insurance is both more just and more efficient than the American system; the libertarian utopia in my head is much better than both!"

Basic economics provide the theory; Canada and England show the practice. Medical care isn't free or unlimited, and when you set the price at zero, you're left with a rationing system that has people waiting months if not years for life-saving surgery. Sure, if you can be cured by a pill, you'll probably be OK, but God help you if you need a doctor's time, rather than just a doctor's signature.

Uh, no. Government is much better at "running a war" than the private sector is. Left wingers believe this far more strongly than (say) the Bush administration, which thinks that outsourcing the Iraq war to private mercenaries was a dandy idea.

Yes, that's my point. Running a war is a proper function of government, it's supposed to be something the government's good at, and look how good a job they're doing. Now you want to put a huge chunk of the economy under a much less competent division of the government without any real incentive to work well?

Liberals believe that some functions are better left to government, and others to the private sector. Conservatives, not liberals, are the inflexible ideologues who believe that one is always superior to the other.

Nonsense. A few things are the government's job, typically dealing with issues that need a communal solution. Infrastructure, police, disaster protection and prevention, the military--all valid government work. Health care, on the other hand, at least outside of infectious disease issues, is not a communal problem. Government isn't best equipped to manage it.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Oh, once again, the usual "rationing" nonsense. The U.S. has it's own forms of rationing and queuing, even for people with the best insurance money can buy. You need lots more than just "a doctor's signature" even in the US system. The single-payer system is actually more efficient because it's simpler than a privately-run system with a gazillion different companies all doing their best to avoid responsibility to pay for treatment.

Yes, that's my point. Running a war is a proper function of government, it's supposed to be something the government's good at, and look how good a job they're doing.

Yes, the military was sent in to do an impossible job. Surprise! They can't do it. What in the world this has to do with government's ability to provide health care, or any other service, is beyond me. Next thing you know, you'll tell me Canute's inability to stop the tides from flowing proves the infeasibility of mass-transit systems.

A few things are the government's job, typically dealing with issues that need a communal solution.

Unfortunately this is argument by tautology. Saying the government should deal with problems "that need a communal solution" is saying that government should deal with issues government should deal with.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

I'm personally a fan of the "Oh my god! In England it could take months to see a doctor!" Now I don't know about you, but I had to wait five months to see my goddamn OB/GYN.

Additionally: saying that health care isn't a communal problem is either willfully scummy or totally pathological (no pun intended). We are one of the sickest countries in the world. We don't take care of our own citizens, and as a result our economy suffers--people work when they're sick, making others sick, reducing productivity, reducing the quality of that product, and producing an epidemic of unwellness on a massive scale.

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Er, sorry, that comment was for the above poster, not you.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Add to which that the answer to the rationing problem is just -- gasp! -- making more health care available by paying for more people to become doctors.

Any individual plan will have to have its incentives carefully balanced, of course. But that's true of any system, and ours needs at the very least a major rebalancing of incentives.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

much less competent division of the government without any real incentive to work well?

On what grounds do you say it's much less competent?

On what grounds do you say it has no real incentive to work well?

And the current private plans have no real incentive to work well either. They have every incentive to promise people health care and then deny it on technicalities. Their incentive structure is they make more money when they deny care, so long as they make the promise that makes the sale and then break the promise when it might break the bank, while denying health care to the people who truly need it.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

One thing I don't understand about the left is this idea that the government is perfectly competent when running massive welfare programs
...well... the government DOES have a record of running the most efficient (in terms of percentage of dollars devoted to patient care, as opposed to any other administrative overhead, profit, paying lawyers to smooth things over, etc). health care plan in the country. That would get my vote. Private insurers are welcome to compete with it -- they'll just get plowed under by a vastly better product.

One thing I don't understand about the left is this idea that the government is perfectly competent when running massive welfare programs, but can't tie its own shoes when running a war.

The government ran WWII very effectively. (And an international body ran the Gulf War very effectively as well). The other wars we've been involved in since have been losing propositions from the start, with either no well-defined objectives or unachievable ones, picked for political/ideological, not military, reasons. No one can be successful under those terms.

A lot of those 45 million uninsured have no need for expensive, all-inclusive health care plans, but they really do need catastrophic health care coverage.
...what part of health are you saying people are inclined to leave out? Are you trying to propose health care plans that will cover the left side of the body, but not the right? The kidneys, but no AIDS?
If that's your proposal, it's DOA, because get this -- there is no such thing as a minor health problem. A "minor" orthopedic problem can cost tremendous amounts of money to treat -- thousands of dollars, which non-rich people don't have lying around. And yet it can have a huge impact on a person's quality of life, even without being life-threatening. And a minor problem, left untreated, will generally become a major one; minor illness is progressive.

there is no health insurance equivalent of, say, Progressive and Geico.
I don't know what you're talking about. GEICO's early efficiency came from carefully selecting the population it insured: originally Government Employees (for its Insurance COmpany), whom actuarial tables showed were much better risks and could therefore be offered preferential rates. At this point, they've dropped that selectivity, but they're still like all other auto insurance; you choose what you cover and to what extent, guided by state minimums.

That's something that cannot work with health care, because health care is so prohibitively expensive. Or rather, it does exist today, in the form of opting out of buying any health care at all; this creates a selection problem where insurance is priced as though it would be bought by only people who will need to use it.
It is essential to understand that this problem won't go away by forcing everyone to buy health insurance. People who now just-do-without and pray they don't get sick will buy catastrophic insurance (which is actually available in most states; it just doesn't cover so much that it isn't worth it to buy, because it doesn't cover those minor-health-problems-that-become-major-ones.) So health care that actually covers something will still be ridiculously expensive, except that now you've forced a lot of people to pay out of pocket for something essentially worthless. UNLESS, of course, you force everyone to buy health insurance beyond the purely catastrophic level; at which point you might as well have a not-for-profit entity with a proven track record of running efficient nationwide social programs manage it, instead of a patchwork of companies that win when they deny treatment, especially life-saving treatment.

(Oh and speaking of catastrophic insurance, have you ever investigated the claim-denial rates of people who've had cancer? You're uninsurable, the end.)

rather than having the government buy the health insurance that people don't need, typically using a large chunk of my money.
I would gladly spend your money to get treatment for kids with, say, juvenile cancers. Yours and mine both. I hope you wouldn't disagree.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

(2 of 2):


But we digress from the thread. The things that haven't been considered are the tremendous strains placed on society's available human capital by a large population of sick people. Or the strains placed on investment by a forced diversion of capital into illness-related debt (whether that gets written off through more lenient bankruptcy laws or not).

And yes, there is the moral dimension too. We as a society believe that people deserve to live healthy lives. They deserve to have their problems fixed to function as best they can. They deserve to have their lives prolonged for so long as they will enjoy a good quality of life. This necessitates a certain amount of health care, and that will cost money. We can either pay for that amount of health care, or we can pay for private companies to shuffle around responsibility for paying for it. We can cut health care costs by the kind of economies of scale that can only happen through guaranteed need and secured payments under a nationwide system—or we can cut those costs by simply denying health care to a sizable proportion of our society. Like them or not, those are the options available to us.
Personally I think that the collective good, the individual good, and the moral imperative happen all to line up together on this issue.

and for the record, yes, I pay my own health insurance. Not to mention my own Geico auto. And I spend every day reading doctors' review books about health care.