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

[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.