Some risky legislation

[Seshat]

Seshat - We will have to agree to disagree.

Fine with me.

I say health insurance should be on the shoulders of the employers because to create a safe work environment and a desirable place to work, insurance should be one of the priorities an employer should think of.

I say workplace safety is independent of the employee's choice of doctor, hospital, or health insurance. And I don't want to have to choose my employer carefully to get good health insurance - I'd rather get my own good health insurance, and be able to choose my employer based on whether they'll be good employers and whether I like the work.

Cultural variation, I suspect.

This smacks too much of a welfare/nanny state.

Not to me - but again, cultural variation.

Also, in a different thread, there was a discussion between me and someone else about different cultural meanings for both 'welfare' and 'nanny state'.

Can't get a job? Government will pay you to sit around the house. Can't get a private nursing home? Government will put you in a substandard, sub par nursing home because they can. Can't afford a burial? Government will put you in a pauper's grave with a bunch of other bodies (not unless you're in the military and then you're buried in the military graveyards).

Unrelated to health care, with the exception of the nursing home. And admittedly, some of our public nursing homes aren't great either. But we're working on that.

Can't get health insurance? Government will pick and chose whom you get to see and what will be done for you.

And as I stated - do I need to say it more loudly? - the government only pays the bills. The doctors and patients pick and choose who we get to see and what gets done.

I think this is to do with cultural differences in understanding about welfare systems and 'nanny states'.

And when I say that universal health care won't help everyone, I mean: People will think OMG!!! I can see any doctor! Any specialist! My <whatever I have> will be cured. And then, they find out they can't because the Government doesn't have that specialist /treatment/whatever listed and they'd have to go to a private doctor and they don't have the money so it won't be taken care of no matter what.

Then you're envisaging a broken system. Australia's system is not like that.

The American Government (or any government in my opinion) cannot/should not be trusted to make personal decisions for us.

And the type of system we have in Australia doesn't ask the government to.

Heck, your HMO system as I've heard it described to me is unbelievable! How have you people not stood up en mass and torn it down? You let your insurers make personal decisions for you? You let your insurers even know what illnesses you have?

Our system is not like that. Only the doctors and patients make decisions about treatments.

It's not a matter of the haves and the have nots. It really isn't. Our government is so far in debt (and don't tell me, no one knows that), that our taxes would be way up, to defray the costs of everyone going to see the doctor.

That may be a problem. It's probably worth investigating how other countries have universal health systems without raising taxes way up. Maybe there's something your government is paying for that they won't need to be, with a universal health system in place.

Again, Big Brother doesn't need to know the reason I'm taking birth control pills is not to prevent babies but to help my body have my periods so my innards don't get any worse. Because OMG ... birth control keeps you from having children and children is the good for the society so birth control is bad and shouldn't be allowed at all.

Again: our system is not like that. The government gets told stuff like 'pay doctor X for a Y-minute consultation' and 'pharmacist Z sold fifty packets of epilum today'.

As I said: Everyone for Universal Health Care will have to agree to disagree with me on this one.

Which would be really and truly fine with me, if you were opposed to real universal health care systems. But some of the things you're opposed to aren't happening in Australia, Canada or the UK. (Mostly because we'd be opposed to them too.)

But where it's purely cultural variation - eh, fine. Different people, different systems, no big.

Okay?

[Seshat]

But yeah, the Government cannot say "We're looking over everything each newspaper does/says and if we don't like it, you're no longer in business" or whatever.

DarthRetard was complaining about the press' choice of coverage of political news. He asked why the press is allowed to publish its choice of news.

I thought the paragraph I quoted was a particularly apt response.

[IDrinkaRum]

DarthRetard was complaining about the press' choice of coverage of political news. He asked why the press is allowed to publish its choice of news.

I thought the paragraph I quoted was a particularly apt response.

That's very true. But one should read a wide variety of newspapers to get the full picture and people don't (me included). Some newspapers are leaning towards the right. Some to the left. There isn't a really good median paper anywhere, I don't think.

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - What you have to understand about the American Government, they want to be in everyone's business. From what I understand, in the American version of Universal Health Care, the Government wants to be right there with you. That is what I don't like. If the Government would butt its nose out of my business and everything, then that's fine.

I like my insurance. I do not have an HMO. I have a PPO. I go where/when/who I like, and no questions asked (really). Local government - State - can mandate employers to give health care. And if the employers with the $hitty insurance can't find workers, then guess what? They're going to up the ante.

But in America, Big Brother is still watching us, still wanting to know everything we do, and still trying to convince us that the only way we can properly live is by listening to them and only them and they know what's best for us.

[AFPheonix]

It's not a matter of the haves and the have nots. It really isn't. Our government is so far in debt (and don't tell me, no one knows that), that our taxes would be way up, to defray the costs of everyone going to see the doctor.

As I stated in an earlier post, the amount we'd be paying in taxes would be offset by the fact that your husband would no longer be paying premiums to a private company (unless you choose to supplement with private coverage), nor would you have to meet a deductible, and his pay would be HIGHER since his employer would not be having to put out a portion of his income to pay for your family's health care.


I have read a fair amount about the Aussie system and I do really like it, I'd love to see it implemented here.
Having worked in a pharmacy long enough to see how ridiculous it is to work with a lot of private companies (tricare peeps have it pretty easy compared to a lot of people with private coverage) and also volunteering in a free clinic for the uninsured and watching people let problems that could have been easily treated in their early stages go until they were really bad, I'd love to see a system enabled here to let people get preventative care easily and cheaply.

Our urgent care clinics and ERs are overloaded with the uninsured. We'd be increasing our response times for emergency services if people could get in with a GP without having to debate whether they can afford it or not.

Furthermore, our national debt can be directly attributed to the sitting president squandering the budget surplus we had at the end of Clinton's administration. We're also running 2 wars without having increased taxes to help pay for it.

We're always told it's a terrible idea because insurance companies are a huge lobby. Yes, they'd lose out a lot if anyone ever got a decent program passed, although government would probably have to contract through them to use the infrastructure they've already got for billing and helpdesks.

[DarthRetard]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis mine.

I suspect you recognise the text, and don't require the attribution.

Ah, but I bring you back to Reagan's Fairness Doctrine from many years ago, that mandated that airwaves were public property, and we deserved to hear all sides of anything. I'm not asking congress to abridge our first amendment by any means. You don't have to quote my own constitution at me either. I do know most of it by heart. :-)

Good old Nancy Pelosi, whom I've disagreed with morally for years, has been workign to get the fairness doctrine reinstated.

And As for Ron Paul being ignored, I'd like you to show me one pres. debate where he got more than three questions. I've watched every one, and counted. I'm a campaign precinct leader for Paul in my area, so I'd like to at leas think I've done SOME research on the project?

Idrinkarum, give the Washington Post or The Christian Science Monitor a shot.

[crazylegs]

I'm not Boozy, but in Aussieland: will today do?

Okay. It actually depends on how busy your doctor of choice is. But I've only had two GPs who I couldn't see for non-urgent matters within a few days, usually as week. Urgent matters they'll fit you in today, tomorrow if it can wait.

In the UK, if you're out of hours the Dr. comes to you if its urgent. How does that sound?

[Boozy]

I can see my doctor within a day if its urgent, never more than four or five days if its not. If I want, I can go to the walk-in clinic down the street and be seen within 2 hours.

I've never had to wait longer than a few weeks to see a specialist when my doctor feels its important. We have some wait times for elective procedures, but no one really cares. The triage system means the operating room and the surgeon's time is not being used for some spoiled brat's tennis elbow when there's a not-so-wealthy person on death's door down the hall.

I can confidently say that the Canadian health care system is better than the US system in virtually every way. Now, I'm not one of those people that thinks their country can do no wrong. I believe that Canada can learn a lot from the US in many respects. But not on this issue.

[TheRoo]

With regards to the fairness doctrine, a Reagan appointed FCC chief, Mark Fowler, led the charge to repeal it in the mid 80's after 35 years. In 1987, congress passed a law to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it. How is the fairness doctrine Reagan's?

[Boozy]

How is the fairness doctrine Reagan's?

Because certain conservative media personalities are constantly giving credit to the Republicans for policies and laws that turn out to be popular, regardless of how they originally came down on the issue.

[Greenday]

I also think that besides being a few trillion bucks in debt and having over 300 million people makes things a lil more complicated.

[CancelMyService]

I always find it a bit odd that the people who are against universal healthcare seem to harp on how broken such a system would be, as if the alternative is so much better. It would have been really neat to have a universal system in place so my parents wouldn't have had to spend their life savings because my dad's cancer was diagnosed 6 months before Medicare kicked in and as such was a "preexisting condition".

Would universal healthcare be perfect? No, and no one who's in favor of it argues that it would be. The people against it seem to construct strawmen to try to scare people away from wanting everyone to have access to health care.

[DexX]

My beloved Australia has had universal health care, at least for the essentials, for over thirty years, and our economy is stronger than ever. An Aussie gets cancer, they go to hospital to get better and face no gigantic bills at the end. Wealthier Australians have the option of going to a private hospital, which they may fund with private health insurance, but despite our recently-voted-out PM's best efforts, private health is not compulsory, and money will never be an issue for Australians seeking treatment for serious illness. The worst thing is that non-life threatening elective surgery is a choice between immediate private care or a wait for public care, but that's about it.

If teensy little Australia can do it, surely "the world's only superpower" can manage it...?

[AFPheonix]

I also think that besides being a few trillion bucks in debt and having over 300 million people makes things a lil more complicated.

Why would you think this would be affected by economies of scale?
A certain amount of national debt is actually good, by the way. It keeps money circulating. The amount of debt we have at the moment is ridiculous, yes, but it could definitely be reduced if there was a mandate to do so.

The other reason I'd like to see universal health care instead of health care provided by employers is the fact that it would move us even more towards a meritocracy. The system we have now actually kind of punishes employers who take on people with health risks or disabilities or who have dangerous hobbies or habits. The end up paying more on health care as does the patient. It also leads to crap policies like higher premiums for smokers. (with no added incentives to quit, mind you)
Removing that barrier would allow businesses to hire on whoever they thought could do the best job, regardless of whether they were at higher risk for stroke or cancer or what have you.

[Seshat]

Seshat - What you have to understand about the American Government, they want to be in everyone's business. From what I understand, in the American version of Universal Health Care, the Government wants to be right there with you. That is what I don't like. If the Government would butt its nose out of my business and everything, then that's fine.
<snip>
But in America, Big Brother is still watching us, still wanting to know everything we do, and still trying to convince us that the only way we can properly live is by listening to them and only them and they know what's best for us.

Okay. So what I'm hearing now is that your two major objections are cultural (you believe employers should be responsible) and USA-specific (the above-quoted Big Brother situation).

Not a problem. I'm not in the USA, I don't know enough about the USA to make any educated arguments about either of those matters. You are, and presumably do, so I defer to you and to those with more knowledge of the US than me.

Until something comes up that I can discuss intelligently, I bow out.