BF2S Forums Regardless of the public option, there NEEDS to be SOME health reform

Dilbert_X wrote:

The question is whether the police have a duty to investigate crime and prosecute offenders, forgetting whether police chiefs would get re-elected and so on.
I'm pretty sure they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pick and choose which crimes to follow up, which investigations to close etc.

You're under the false assumption that police chiefs are always elected officials.

They "pick and choose" those cases based on their professional judgment and training in the vast majority of cases.

Universal healthcare will not solve the problem, but it will mask the symptoms. The problem is that, like all other large industries, healthcare is monopolized. The symptom is that a chunk of our population can't access it at all. Just because we mask that by collectivizing a large part of the industry so that some services are available to all still doesn't mean people will have any control over the treatments available, and it's entirely possible that the middle class will actually see a reduced range of options and reduced quality in healthcare. It should not effect the upper class at all. As much as we will be propping up the lower class, we will drag down the middle class and widen the overall disparity of wealth (at least in the context of healthcare). It's not hard to point out our government's many failures and outright crimes against our people and other nations. I have no idea why so many of us are happy to hand our access to medicine over to the government that could be run my Adolph Hitler come the next election.

Actually, I do have a pretty good idea of why people are willing to usher in socialism: the false dichotomy of socialism and capitalism. Narrow-minded Americans and Europeans believe that because corporate capitalism has, particularly recently, been demonstrably detrimental to social justice, and because socialism is supposedly the opposite, it should therefore be beneficial. (lol history). Monetary socialist democracies and free market corporate empires are structurally the same. If you identify with either ideology you are pretty much an idiot. Good day!

Last edited by Marinejuana (2009-09-28 16:08:43)

Police chiefs may or may not be elected, generally they are answerable to elected officials.
They don't throw 110% effort into solving every crime until its solved.

Burwhale wrote:

Getting back to health. Today we had one of the federal secretaries of Health in Australia at our work giving a talk. He gave the stat that in Australia 1 in 11 dollars is spent on health, while in the US 1 in 6 is spent on Health. This was a suprise to me as the entire population is basically covered over here, and not there. I think you need ground up health reform over there as something seems pretty wrong to me if that stat is correct.

1/6th of our economy is related to healthcare. That doesn't mean that 1 out of every 6 dollars is spent on health in the US. That amount includes R&D (which also benefits other countries), and doesn't include return on investment of those dollars.

Burwhale wrote:

Fair enough. He didnt go into detail with that stat. Politicians eh!

Statistics are convenient that way.

Mitch wrote:

Whats wrong with a state-wide social healthcare program. Why does it have to federal? The consitution clearly says that unless a privilage is given to the federal government, its up to the states.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Set it up at the state level and if it flourishes you've got a winner. If it fails then you learn from it and move on.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Whats wrong with a state-wide social healthcare program. Why does it have to federal? The consitution clearly says that unless a privilage is given to the federal government, its up to the states.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Set it up at the state level and if it flourishes you've got a winner. If it fails then you learn from it and move on.

This tbh.

This is one of the greta things about how the US Constitution set things up: If one state tries something, and it works, others may follow with their own, similar program, but if it doesn't, it won't screw up the country completely.

nickb64 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Whats wrong with a state-wide social healthcare program. Why does it have to federal? The consitution clearly says that unless a privilage is given to the federal government, its up to the states.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Set it up at the state level and if it flourishes you've got a winner. If it fails then you learn from it and move on.

This tbh.

This is one of the greta things about how the US Constitution set things up: If one state tries something, and it works, others may follow with their own, similar program, but if it doesn't, it won't screw up the country completely.

I wouldn't trust some of the states to be able to manage health care, at all. California for example...

AussieReaper wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Set it up at the state level and if it flourishes you've got a winner. If it fails then you learn from it and move on.

This tbh.

This is one of the greta things about how the US Constitution set things up: If one state tries something, and it works, others may follow with their own, similar program, but if it doesn't, it won't screw up the country completely.

I wouldn't trust some of the states to be able to manage health care, at all. California for example...

But you would trust our federal government.  They are more like CA then most other states.

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Getting back to health. Today we had one of the federal secretaries of Health in Australia at our work giving a talk. He gave the stat that in Australia 1 in 11 dollars is spent on health, while in the US 1 in 6 is spent on Health. This was a suprise to me as the entire population is basically covered over here, and not there. I think you need ground up health reform over there as something seems pretty wrong to me if that stat is correct.

1/6th of our economy is related to healthcare. That doesn't mean that 1 out of every 6 dollars is spent on health in the US. That amount includes R&D (which also benefits other countries), and doesn't include return on investment of those dollars.

You don't think other countries spend money on R&D?

Take it easy, Francis.

I never said other countries don't spend money on R&D or that we don't benefit from other countries' medical R&D. Many of my son's medicines and medical equipment are from foreign manufacturers.

DrunkFace wrote:

Also the more you spend on 'health related' administration is a bad thing.

And that administrative burden is higher for government-related administration than it is for private health-related administration. And it would be even lower for private if the federal government did what it was Constitutionally empowered to do and provided interstate portability/standards in billing/coding to allow for interstate commerce amongst private health insurers.