Re: Myths and Facts About Single-Payer Healthcare

In article <lvdh73d851vuhca9nj41banvfpl3dtam9a@xxxxxxx>, The Wolf With
the Red Roses <after-dark-arms@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:40:26 -0400, Sean C
<redhawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote something wonderfully witty:


Sounds like SOCIALISM to me. What's next, playing the FRENCH NATIONAL
ANTHEM in doctor's offices?

No Socialism is where the hospital has got to service the deeadbeat
and then I get to pay a portion of his bill when I go.


It's all about you, isn't it?

Of course, the irony here is that *you* are not paying for anybody,
other people are paying for you. As someone with CP and other ailments
who uses high-priced pain meds and other costly services, you are using
more in insurance than you are paying into it. A small group of
able-bodied young men who take care of their health and flip burgers at
McDs and struggle to pay for their un-surance are making up the
difference. People like you, the company CEO and the bureaucratic bloat
are the deadwood in the system.

Of course, the fact that insurance is about "socializing risk" is
completely lost on you.

Look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Self Actualization Needs (full potential)
Ego Needs (self respect, personal worth, autonomy)
Social Needs (love, friendship, comradeship)
Security Needs (protection from danger)
Physiological Needs (warmth, shelter, food)

There isn't any "Health Care" need, there really isn't any government
need either.

I don't see "sex" up there, so I guess that's not a need either.

It's up there in the "full potential". Some people never reach their
full potential.

If we are going to plug in values, let's include "health care" up there
with "physiological needs."

If you don't think health care is a necessity in the modern world, why
are we having this debate at all?

It's a funny thing, but most of us enjoy a lot of autonomy in our lives
right up to the moment we show up at work, at which point we check our
autonomy at the door. Where in the free market is my need for autonomy
filled?

Ahh, slave for the wage huh? Annoys you huh? What stops you in a
free market from creating your own answer to a free market need?
Whoops I forgot about the "full potential".

You forgot that in a capitalist system, you require capital to do
anything, and clearly not everyone can be self-employed so the vast
majority of people will in fact have little or no autonomy in their
lives. If most working class people had the means to become part of the
ruling class, they wouldn't be bitching about the cost of health care.
(Note to ZW: Insert rags-to-riches story as response here)

I always love how this little right-wing meme comes up in any
discussion of workers rights. Rather than acknowledge the simple fact
that workers have little or no autonomy on the job, wingers inevitably
offer up some ludicrous fantasy of how everyone can be self-employed or
rich, and if they aren't IT'S THEIR OWN FAULT that they have no
autonomy.

I might as realistically blame you for not becoming the CEO of your own
string of hospitals and insurance companies.

How about we keep the debate grounded in the real world?

No argument there. We should ensure that every citizen has the minimum
needed to survive, including health care, the way civilized countries
do. If you don't like millions of your fellow citizens exercising their
autonomy to vote for these things, than vote with your dollars and go
somewhere the free market alone dictates your choices.

If there is something about citizenship other then coming kicking &
screaming out of birth canal within our borders I might agree with
you. However, I suspect you & I might differ on actually what makes
one a "citizen" and what their duties & obligations are.

In case it's been a while since civics you can bone up on it here:
http://civics.pwnet.org/CE/CE.4.html

Your point being what exactly, that working class Americans who can't
afford health care aren't good citizens?

Who is going to do the fixing, exactly? The HMOs? Yeah, they are really
going to reign in their premiums voluntarily. The hospitals? They are
itching to make less money. The drug companies? They can't wait to see
caps put on their profits that can only result in people like you and
me DYING IN EXTREMELY GRUESOME WAYS because the only drugs that work
are those that were developed with 1000 percent mark-ups in mind.

What created the desire & need for HMO's? Who allowed it? Weren't
they the first attempt at an answer to the problem.

Why on earth would they want you to die? If you die you quit paying
premiums.

It's amazing how many capitalists have no clue how capitalism works.
Insurance companies make money by bringing in the maximum in premiums
possible, while paying out the minimum in claims. Obviously insurance
companies want you to be healthy and never die--just so long as you are
bringing in more money than they are paying out to you, you are an
asset. It's when you start generating bills of $50,000 and $100,000
dollars on a policy with a $6,000 premium that you are no longer an
asset, you are a liability, and they start looking for ways to deny you
care or boot you altogether. Similarly, insurance companies don't want
to grant policies to people who, based on their calculations, are
likely to become a liability, such as those with particular
pre-existing conditions. If you already have insurance and become a big
enough liability, it is in the insurance company's financial interest
to see you die.

Or maybe we could institute nationalized health insurance and reduce
adminstration costs of 35 percent to the 5 to 10 percent enjoyed in
most other countries, or the 3 percent of Medicare, and save $345
billion a year with that move alone. Putting caps on profits would save
hundreds of billions more.

Ahh most other countries. I wonder why it is that when people
emigrate it isn't to most other countries it is here.

Got a cite for that? People emigrate all over the place all the time,
not just into the US. Why do so many Filipinos seek work in Saudi
Arabia and Iran if the US is such a good deal? The answer is because
that is the option that was open to them at the time, and those
countries let them in.

Most people who immigrate to the US nowadays are Mexicans who come
illegally across the border for convenience sake. Obviously, we're a
better deal than Mexico, and easier to reach on foot than Canada. Most
immigrants with a choice try to get into Europe. The immigration rate
in Ireland is 3x what it is in the US.

What do you have against profit? Do you want to see your profit
capped? Your employers ability to generate profit so restricted that
they have to let you go?

I have nothing against profit. I have something against obscene
profits, especially when I am the one paying for them, and there are
better alternatives out there. What do you have against the citizens of
a country collectively bargaining for a better deal? Why should I be
oblligated to contribute to some CEO's $1.6 billion salary when my
money can be better spent elsewhere? Do you like paying more for less?
There are some businesses that work best on a for-profit basis, and
others that work better on a non or limited profit basis.

How long do you think the fire department would last if fireman were
only paid on the basis of how many houses they saved? What would happen
if cops only got paid based on the number of arrests they made? What
happens when insurance companies make more profit based on the number
of claims they deny?

The answer is you will either see less fireman, cops and insurance
companies or you will see more suspicious fires, arbitary rests or
questionable denial of claims, because profit creates a motive, if not
a necessity, for these things .

What do you have against common sense?

Why can't you pay for what you consume?

Why don't you?

I am not aware of any conceivable insurance proposal that doesn't
involve at least some people getting more than they pay into the
system. Insurance is, after all, a system for socializing risk. The
question then is how do we develop a system that gives the best result
at the lowest price, and clearly the system we have isn't the best in
those terms. All this crap about hating profit, hating America,
deadbeats and "socialism" is just a red herring to detract from the
simple fact we have a system that is highly inefficent and ineffectual
for the people it is intended to serve.

--Sean C
.

Loading