I find these Government control arguments laughable. Let me ask you a question; do you believe that once Government manages our healthcare system they will not be in the business of denying care? Have you ever seen the comments coming from Obama and what other nations with centralized Government care do to deny coverage?
Healthcare will be rationed in any system, and I don't know where I implied it won't. But denying people on an arbitrary basis to make money is worse than denying people on the basis of what is effective and cost effective.
Obama himself stated that it is a waste of dollars to provide complex operations for old people who are basically going to die anyway.
I don't really care what Obama says. If you read my posts in some other threads you would see that I advocate for NHI, but not in the exact form it's taking.
You rail about the profit motivation behind Insurance companies in a vacuum of reality and facts and support some absurd and naive notion that once Government puts insurance companies out of business we will all get undeniable care.
No those who need care will have access to it, as private insurance excludes on the basis of how much of a risk an individual is as opposed to how effective and cost-effective a tx/rx is.
The FACT is that competition is what keeps costs down. Once that is removed, there will be a never ending upward spiral of costs; the only difference is that the burden of those costs will no longer be borne by the individuals or insurance companies, it will be borne mainly by those who are still employed through excessive taxation and VAT taxes on everything we purchase.
The upward spiral of costs can be attributed to the lack of integrated and primary care. Lack of primary care is exacerbated by people being uninsured or underinsured. There is no meaningful competition in health insurance, except in the sense of encouraging pseudoinsurance, as it is mostly employer-based, but individual insurance is ridiculous in its overhead costs, and people do not generally have the expertise to evaluate the intricacies of insurance.
Becoming a WARD of the State leads to only THREE things; lower level of quality, less choice at even greater costs.
Not inevitably, as evidenced by the VHA after 1998.
The notion that the Government can manage healthcare costs better than the private industry requires willful ignorance by those who do not deal in facts or the historic record.
lol, oh is that why doctors, who would not financially benefit, and likely would earn less money from NHI, are divided on the issue? They see the faults of both private and government insurance everyday.
The notion that we can pile another few trillion on top of the $2 trillion deficit we already have requires insanity.
Oh you're an economist huh? As if that is worse than insurance premiums that double every decade. Part of the reason our industries cannot compete is because they're burdened by providing private health insurance with profit.
NHI isn't the ends itself, it is a means to an end. It allows us to cause needed reforms that won't happen when profit prevails.
You get what you give with me. You came into this acting smarmy and superior, all the while not knowing what you are talking about or caring about the consequences.
How do you know that? You think there's nobody who is informed who disagrees with you?
Are you kidding, I knocked you out of the park.
lol, where?
Years of study? HAHAHA, so you've just admitted you are all theory here, try getting some practical experience in the field, or learn how our government is supposed to work, then get back to us.
Yes, because nobody with practical experience in the field wants NHI? lol
Years of study does not imply whether I'm all theory or not, not that I believe in the distinction. Statistics tell us more about policy than experienced anecdotes.
Oh, and insurance exists to protect people's finances in catastrophic times, if we weren't here you'd be begging us to come back. Here's a hint for you, don't insult someone's profession, especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
You haven't proven my level of knowledge, only your level of sensitivity.
Yes, insurance is better than sheer out of pocket due to the unpredictable nature of healthcare costs, but I never advocated going back to out of pocket. But that says nothing about government versus private insurance.
You probably wouldn't know the difference between an indemnity company, an HMO, a PPO, or a traditional major med. policy, but you are going to assert yet another talking point so that you look "qualified" to join this debate.
Why speculate? You'd have to find a comment I make that shows I do not know what those things are, but no such comment exists because I do know what they are.
Everything is stated in contract,
Yeah, contracts they don't understand, and when they usually don't even have a choice given that it's whatever their employer uses.
Why, so it can be run by the typical idiot that runs government and non-profit agencies, face it, government run or non-profit = ****.
Um, yeah the VHA under Kenneth Kizer was terrible.:roll:
