Against current healthcare reform efforts?

Yerda · Jul 21, 2009

waacman said:
name one area in which both the private sector and the government are allowed, and usually the private sector wins hands down. Both for quality and price.

In the UK we have something called the Privare Finance Initiative (PFI - renamed Private Public Partnership). What happens is the government make available to private companies (often consortiums) contracts for normally public projects - like building schools, building and running hospitals, building and maintaining roads, and so on and the public leases them back over fairly long terms (25-30 years etc). I have no knowledge of the schools except that they cost far higher than comparable publicly built schools. The hospitals have been worse in almost every measure. The level of care, the value for money, cleanliness etc. Most shockingly a bridge built from the Scottish mainland to an isle cost the taxpayers almost 100 million pounds.

The reality of public vs private enterprise almost always turns out to be in complete contradiction to the textbook claims of private efficiency and value.

Sunstone · Jul 21, 2009

Seyorni said:
What's to interpret?
The health care industry stands to loose billions if healthcare is reformed. We've known for weeks now about the army of lobbyists they've deployed, the 1.4 million per day they're spending, the massive propaganda.
Nothing new or remarkable here.

I agree. It's the health care industry vs. most of America.

waacman · Jul 21, 2009

Jaiket said:
In the UK we have something called the Privare Finance Initiative (PFI - renamed Private Public Partnership). What happens is the government make available to private companies (often consortiums) contracts for normally public projects - like building schools, building and running hospitals, building and maintaining roads, and so on and the public leases them back over fairly long terms (25-30 years etc). I have no knowledge of the schools except that they cost far higher than comparable publicly built schools. The hospitals have been worse in almost every measure. The level of care, the value for money, cleanliness etc. Most shockingly a bridge built from the Scottish mainland to an isle cost the taxpayers almost 100 million pounds.

The reality of public vs private enterprise almost always turns out to be in complete contradiction to the textbook claims of private efficiency and value.

Isn't that just contract work? The company uses the governments money? I've always thought that private companies don't borrow from the government (now they do though : ( ) I don't think thats the way it works over here in the US though. To my knowledge.

Yerda · Jul 21, 2009

waacman said:
Isn't that just contract work? The company uses the governments money? I've always thought that private companies don't borrow from the government (now they do though : ( ) I don't think thats the way it works over here in the US though. To my knowledge.

No, the companies fund the project and charge the public for the use of the facility - as would happen in a private project.

Reverend Rick · Jul 21, 2009

Zephyr said:
Just a reminder that people who oppose health care reform because of the tax increases literally believe that their money is worth more than human lives.

If you subscribe to the notion that we are all God's children, then I would have to agree with you.

I suspect you believe in evolution. You know, the system where the strong evolve and the weak become extinct?

Zephyr · Jul 21, 2009

I believe in science, yes, but I also believe in the value of human life. A value that seems to be quite a bit greater than many who would oppose universal health care for cost reasons.

Also, the theory of natural selection does not account for societal constructs like money. Nice try though.

Yerda · Jul 21, 2009

Reverend Rick said:
If you subscribe to the notion that we are all God's children, then I would have to agree with you.

I suspect you believe in evolution. You know, the system where the strong evolve and the weak become extinct?

The strange thing is that I would say the second sentence much more strongly characterises the impression I have gotten from you on this site. Is that unfair?

TheKnight · Jul 22, 2009

Zephyr said:
Ah ok, so the old "**** you, got mine". That's cool too. You just go ahead and rock on with your private healthcare. We uninsured know when we're not wanted.

I realized that it's jacked up. But, you the fact that it's jacked up doesn't mean you get to steal my money because you can't afford what I can. How long until people start wanting things other than healthcare?

Sure, I have no problem with you getting government healthcare, but I don't (and never have) agree with the fact that people pay taxes for services they don't use. The government should assess what services each individual uses, only tax them extra for the ones that they use, and then have a flate-rate tax for the stuff they don't use.

Seyorni said:
Pssst -- you already do. The US government spends twice what any other countries spend on their entire healthcare systems - in taxes alone!

Ahh yes. And then they have the nerve to try and tell me what I can and can't do with my money. They can do whatever they want with it, but when I want to do something with it there's a problem.

Our government crosses lines that it shouldn't and is in serious need for reform.

Zephyr · Jul 22, 2009

My money is more valuable than human lives. If saving somebody's life required my tax money to cover the surgery, that person should die. After all, that surgery doesn't benefit me, just some other less-important person.

TheKnight · Jul 22, 2009

Zephyr said:
My money is more valuable than human lives. If saving somebody's life required my tax money to cover the surgery, that person should die. After all, that surgery doesn't benefit me, just some other less-important person.

As I said, I wouldn't mind paying the taxes, but I would want to make sure that competent people were in charge of what was done with the money.

Mr Cheese · Jul 22, 2009

TheKnight said:
As I said, I wouldn't mind paying the taxes, but I would want to make sure that competent people were in charge of what was done with the money.

money is far more important than people.
Every good american knows this...duh

Storm · Jul 22, 2009

Without Oregon's socialized health program, my son would be dead. Twice. From easily treatable conditions. Who wants to tell me that it's ok for my son to die, so long as it means lower taxes?

The US has one of, if not THE, highest infant mortality rates in the Western world, for precisely this reason.

There are thousands, if not millions, of people out there for whom socialized medicine is life or death. Relatively few are as lucky as I was.

Valjean · Jul 22, 2009

I think you might be misusing the term "socialized medicine," Storm.
Socialized medicine is when the government owns the hospitals, clinics, &c. The Drs, nurses, &c are government employees, working on salary.
In the US the Veteran's Administration is the only socialized system I'm aware of. The UK's National Health Service is also a socialized system, but most single-payer and subsidized systems around the world are not socialized.

Storm · Jul 22, 2009

Seyorni said:
I think you might be misusing the term "socialized medicine," storm.
Socialized medicine is when the government owns the hospitals, clinics, &c. The Drs, nurses, &c are government employees, working on salary.
In the US the Veteran's Administration is the only socialized system I'm aware of. The UK's National Health Service is also a socialized system, but most single-payer and subsidized systems around the world are not socialized.

OK. What would be the proper term for the Oregon Health Plan, which provides comprehensive coverage to low-income folks such as myself?

Another reason this is a personal issue for me:

As I've said elsewhere, I'm disabled. Without OHP, I couldn't have afforded the treatment which led to my diagnoses, much less my ongoing therapy and medications. Without the diagnoses, I couldn't have gotten on disability. I'd still be yet another homeless person with raging, untreated mental illness, just another statistic. OHP, in addition to making my life bearable, enables me to be a productive member of society.

How many others could be, if they only had treatment? How many of our society's ills could be helped by such reforms?

Valjean · Jul 22, 2009

I don't know much about Oregon's system, Storm, but, as I understand it, the OHP is a single-payer, state/federal subsidy system, funded by hospital and HMO taxes and unique agreement with the federal Medicaid system. It get's tweaked all the time, though, and is sort of a work in progress.
It seems to be a pretty good system, considering the environment it has to operate in. You're lucky to be in Oregon and have access to such an expaneded system. I'm glad it's working for you. :rainbow1:

Storm · Jul 22, 2009

Looks like you know as much as I do.

Thanks, and I'm well aware how very lucky I am.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 22, 2009

I see people making money because they are working for it. I feel the system we have now is working.

It sure does work. My brother owes over $200,000 to a hospital because he was in a very bad car wreck. I've had carpal tunnel for about 3 years now. I need to have my knees worked on because the cartilidge is almost not even their anymore. People get sick and can't afford to get better. Accidents that lead to serious injury can easily bankrupt an uninsured family. And plenty of places to offer health insurance. The question is, will the insurance cover more than the paper work or not.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 22, 2009

I don't know much about Oregon's system, Storm, but, as I understand it, the OHP is a single-payer, state/federal subsidy system, funded by hospital and HMO taxes and unique agreement with the federal Medicaid system. It get's tweaked all the time, though, and is sort of a work in progress.

Can someone please explain this single payer system? The guest on Colbert last night mentioned how naitons with a single payer system have a more succesful national health care system, and this made me wonder what exactly it is.

Wandered Off · Jul 22, 2009

Single payer just means there is only one entity (the government, in this case) that pays for all medical procedures. This is in contrast to our system today where, if you have private insurance, your insurance company pays all or part, and you might pay for part. There are also state and federal agencies that pay for some care.

Ciscokid · Jul 23, 2009

Zephyr said:
Do you oppose public roads, police departments, fire departments, courts or post offices? After all, if the government is so inefficient, wouldn't it be better to just replace all these with private services? I'm sure you could probably find some affordable private police or fire services, and I'm sure people will find a way to scrap together enough money to keep the roads drivable.

I think there's a big difference between State and Federal. How well did the Feds manage the Katrina supplies? Shouldn't that be rather simple?

Against current healthcare reform efforts?

Veteran Member

De Diablo Del Fora

Restoration of everything

Veteran Member

Frubal Whore

Moved on

Veteran Member

Guardian of Life

Moved on

Guardian of Life

Well-Known Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Veteran Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Veteran Member

ThrUU the Looking Glass

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Sporadic Driveby Member

Well-Known Member