Our federal government wanting to take over health care reminds me of a small child wanting a puppy. As any pet owner can tell you, a pet requires dedicated, daily attention. Small children do not normally have the discipline to care for such a pet.
Many parents will start their kids on smaller pets like a goldfish, lizard or hamster.
We need to do the same with government: Give them some small program to run. If they can keep in in the black and not kill or maim anybody in the process, only then will we consider turning over to them one-seventh of the US economy and all life and death decisions.
These incorrigible children stamp their feet and stick out their tongues at the people they are supposed to serve. They have proven themselves unworthy of our trust. In their wake are dessicated frogs, floating goldfish, rotting upside down tortoises and escaped lizards whose progeny are taking over the house.
No, little Nancy, we're not trusting you with a dog.
Many parents will start their kids on smaller pets like a goldfish, lizard or hamster.
We need to do the same with government: Give them some small program to run. If they can keep in in the black and not kill or maim anybody in the process, only then will we consider turning over to them one-seventh of the US economy and all life and death decisions.
These incorrigible children stamp their feet and stick out their tongues at the people they are supposed to serve. They have proven themselves unworthy of our trust. In their wake are dessicated frogs, floating goldfish, rotting upside down tortoises and escaped lizards whose progeny are taking over the house.
No, little Nancy, we're not trusting you with a dog.
17 comments:
Yah because the post office, transit, libraries, etc... are all dieing. Give me a break. If those were private it would cost $10 to mail a letter and stamps would be a dollar each.
"Oh no, the gov't provides good service at low prices... I hope they don't do the same thing with health care like they've done in Canada. I want people blleding in waiting rooms, and dieing from preventable illnesses with soemwhat costly treatments."
The gov't has passed your test Silverfiddle. You're just to ideologically blind to see the results.
The Post Office... being put out of business by UPS, FEDEX and various smaller firms like DHS. In an effort to survive they are raising the price of stamps, closing post offices, and cutting out a day of service.
Transit, the government has done nothing but lose money on CONRAIL and AMTRAK. In addition to all of the revenues generated by service, AMTRAK required an additional $475 million in subsidies from the federal government to remain solvent
Libraries... with the exception of the LOC are all either local ventures or funded by philanthropists (e.g. Carnegie... one of those nasty evil capitalists). As far as local ventures go, our local library which we derisively refer to as the Taj Mahal, is over 30% of my local property tax mill rate. Not that I'm against libraries... but I'm one of the few who use it. Not counting staff, I've never seen more than a few people in it at any given time, and often find it empty.
You blow more smoke out your ass than the space shuttle on an orbital trajectory. You probably picked the worst possible examples to justify your position.
The US government is the epitome of inefficiency in everything they do... you can find better but you won't pay more!
CP-by law the post office was formed and is actually supposed to be seperate and self supporting.
The hamster is already dead. Medicare and Social Security are government failures. And we want to turn our lives over to their incapable hands? Not.
What can I say, the same is not true in Canada. The transit, ferries, hydro, libraries, etc... are all doing well.
Maybe it's the people who don't think gov't can run things who get into gov't who ruin all the gov't ventures.
I know that since a more conservative leader has come into BC, the local community colleges have had funding cut off for no particular reason. Classrooms are running out of desks and chairs.
Anyways, I believe the health care proposal is just a gov't option and not a gov't takeover. What could possibly be the harm of a gov't option?
There is nothing wrong with a government option, nor is there anything wrong with a government gap coverage system. The question is why, if concerned about those who lack insurance, do you have to do anything to those who already have it?
I am already eligible for "government healthcare" through the VA... fortunately, am in a position where I don't have to use it. Honestly, I'd pay out of my own pocket before going to the VA clinic here.
Where I live we have a city hospital system and a private system, if I have to go to the hospital I go to the private hospital. If you go to the public hospital ER, unless you are dying you will wait 8-12 hours, at the private hospital the wait will be 1-2.
I was not always vehemently against government health care and worked at a major city hospital on the east coast at one point. My personal experience involves 2 trips to the city hospital ER, where I was diagnosed with acid reflux and sent home with some antacids and acid inhibiters. I spent months suffering from the pain of gallbladder attacks with repeated trips to the ER. I went to the public hospital because it was closer, no other reason. In fact, my gallbladder was completely shot, which they identified immediately at my first trip to the private hospital ER and removed the next day. Haven't had a problem since.
It's not the quality of the medical professionals at each hospital that I think differs, but the overall administration. The public hospital staff are overworked, underpaid, underequipped, and undersupplied. If the government can't keep up now, why should I think a complete takeover will improve things? The same goes for the VA, which in my experience is the medical equivalent of a 24 hour convenience store. Sure you can go there for milk and bread in an emergency, but you're not going to do your grocery shopping there.
The government says "we're not going to take your choices away from you"... but when the government gets in the business as a "non-profit"... and offers coverage for $600, do you think that the bean counters at major companies are going to continue to offer their employees private coverage for $1200? No, they'll switch to the government plan. The government will rapidly corner the market with subsidized below market value pricing and force the majors out of business. Then what is your choice? The private system will rapidly be transformed into a single-payer government system.
The end effect of this is that while healthcare will improve for a small minority, the overall quality of care will go down for all but the wealthy, those who can afford "premium" care, and don't care about the price. I don't know if you have any experience with US government healthcare, but the quality of government run institutions here is never as good as in the private sector.
The government can not keep costs down in anything... the end result will be worse care for more cost.
~Finntann~
Well, if employeers choose the gov't option I don't see anything wrong with that so long as employees accept it. The good thing about that is that people who would not get health care from work all of the sudden could be offered the gov't option.
That the care would be worse, as in your case might be true to some extent, and I know wait times are quite long here as well, but misdiagnosis is quite rare. I think your case is the first I have ever heard about so severe.
I agree that the overall standard will be lowered, but that is only relative.
If standards for end of life care are not lowered, but concentrated towards quality of life rather than longevity, the cost will decrease dramatically overall.
There won't be a death panel, but the doctors won't be forced to go to every length to ensure you live out an extra 3 weeks in a hospital bed rather than not have those three weeks, but die comfortably without having to take expensive and painful treatments on which decrease the quality of your final days.
Costs can be cut in very reasonable ways like these ad infinitum. The question is whether Americans will accept euthanasia legislations like there are in oregan, and whether they will fill out their living wills, etc...
Emergency room care should be a priority. That it is not is only because things that are less important are so costly.
If the gov't can't cut costs the only reason will be that the American people are morons and won't accept it.
I am an organ donor and I have a living will. If every did this that would decrease Schiavo-type, expensive cases.
And you make another good point which is that rich people can have their own hospital entirely if the care is so bad.
There is still choice except instead of the bottom earners and people who cannot afford care having to "choose" no health care, the top earners who can honestly choose "better" health care can still go out and get it.
I'm sorry I missed my strongest point:
This will be good for business is their health care costs are cut in half.
So, good for the people who are uninsured, good for business, lowered costs, but somewhat lesser "quality" health care.
Even if it were true that gov't health care was as much worse as you make it out to be, I'd say it's still worth it.
But the fact of the matter is Canada, France, etc... all have lower costs, more healthy people...
Yah, if I sprain my ankle and I think there was a rip, tear or break I'll have to sit with ice on it for 6-8 hours if I go to the local emergency room right now.
So what...? That's as bad as it gets-barring misdiagnoses. It's still not that bad, but for half the cost I'll take it every time.
What you missed is that under the proposed reform bill, while existing policies will be grandfathered, if you want a new policy, or those people buying policies for the first time will have to buy their policies from a government clearinghouse. If, the primary goal is to improve the health care of those who can't afford it, why limit those who can to buying throught the government? Unless of course, it is to control it.
Why would people who want health care for the first time be limited to the gov't option. The only reason that could betrue is because the gov't option is affordable, unless you know something else I am unaware of.
Aside from which, what's wrong with the gov't controlling it? Better than the private tyranny than is currently the status quo.
You seem to think the worse of gov't while at the same time not realizing that private business men and women can be just as bad, actually even worse because they're motivated solely on the basis of profit.
Government insurance laws and regulations makes insurance more expensive than it should be and actually stifle price-lowering competition (you cannot cross state lines, for example).
Who would you trust more? An entity that has a (seemingly) endless pot of money to cover every inefficiency and mistake they make, or an entity that must perform or it will go out of business?
To make money, the latter, to provide good health care, the former.
They make it more expensive so it's half price as Finntann claims?
Redneck Ron, you see how all their arguments fall apart under any sort of scrutiny.
Private tyranny is what they support. They're not anti-government, they're just pro-big business.
The less power the gov't has the more power corporations do. Aside from being ableto make more profits, why are businesses better than gov't?
I'd like Ron to answer if he's reading.
The only thing that has fallen apart is you, CP.
You can't even stay on topic. The track record of our government reflects nothing that should give a reasonable person confidence that they won't screw this up while wasting trillions.
So the private sectors track record give you confidence?
There is only one alternative and that alternative has had slave labor make garments, robbed places without a lot of drinking water of water, and paid workers in America and around thw world the bare minimum.
So the gov't might screw this up, but only on your definition that if they spend a few dollars more than the private sector would, but also provide better care to more people that would constitute failure, while the private sector is currently screwing things up to an extent the gov't never could or would.
Great logic Silverfiddle.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.