• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How would you fix the US health care system?

Select a Health Care system you think would work

  • Socialized Medicine

    Votes: 24 48.0%
  • Socialized Insurance

    Votes: 13 26.0%
  • Additional Government Programs

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Capitalistic Free Market (No Change)

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Other (specify in post)

    Votes: 7 14.0%

  • Total voters
    50

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
What is it with "Socialism" :)eek:). Why is it suddenly a dirty word?
I'm really interested in what people think socialism is; how they're defining it, and what they fear from it. What makes socialism a bad thing?

Socialism removes the incentive to work. If all your basic needs are met, why get out of bed and go to work?

When people abuse the system, it is just as bad as slavery. One person works hard and does not recieve the fruits of their labor while the other person does nothing and eats the fruits.

Most socialist countries fail because people pretend to work and their government pretends to pay them.

There is no reward for thinking of a better idea or going beyond the norm. Why bother?

I guess some folks will never understand the desire to achieve greatness.

I can hear the opposition already. Where is the compassion, right? Successful people have a moral obligation to give to charities. Why don't more people give to charities? Because they think the rich should do it all.

This attitude of being generous with other folks money is the perfect example of the hypocrisy of liberals who deep down in side are even more greedy than the rich.
 

Panda

42?
Premium Member
Socialism removes the incentive to work. If all your basic needs are met, why get out of bed and go to work?

When people abuse the system, it is just as bad as slavery. One person works hard and does not recieve the fruits of their labor while the other person does nothing and eats the fruits.

Most socialist countries fail because people pretend to work and their government pretends to pay them.

There is no reward for thinking of a better idea or going beyond the norm. Why bother?

I guess some folks will never understand the desire to achieve greatness.

I can hear the opposition already. Where is the compassion, right? Successful people have a moral obligation to give to charities. Why don't more people give to charities? Because they think the rich should do it all.

This attitude of being generous with other folks money is the perfect example of the hypocrisy of liberals who deep down in side are even more greedy than the rich.

National health care doesn't seem to have done this in the UK. I mean I have free health care and it doesn't stop me wanting to go to uni to get a good job. This is the same with all my friends as well.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Socialism removes the incentive to work. If all your basic needs are met, why get out of bed and go to work?
This has not been the experience in the many 'socialist' economies around the world.

When people abuse the system, it is just as bad as slavery. One person works hard and does not recieve the fruits of their labor while the other person does nothing and eats the fruits.
People will always find ways of abusing any system, but few systems are so ripe for abuse as laissez-faire, privatized, free market systems.

Most socialist countries fail because people pretend to work and their government pretends to pay them.
This, as you know, was a common saying among Soviet workers, but it really doesn't apply to the socialism we're talking about.
Modern socialists enjoy high standards of living as well as security. The economy of the system resides largely in being able to buy essential services wholesale, while retaining a vigorous retail market for non-essentials.

There is no reward for thinking of a better idea or going beyond the norm. Why bother?
Again, sounds reasonable in theory, but has not been the case in application.

I guess some folks will never understand the desire to achieve greatness.
You're rereading "Atlas Shrugged", aren't you? ;)

I can hear the opposition already. Where is the compassion, right? Successful people have a moral obligation to give to charities. Why don't more people give to charities? Because they think the rich should do it all.
Come on, RR. Even you know this is a load of horse****!

This attitude of being generous with other folks money is the perfect example of the hypocrisy of liberals who deep down in side are even more greedy than the rich.
This is what society is all about, Rev. Co-operation, co-ordination. Properly applied, everyone wins -- rich and poor. The rich are only rich 'cause they used the existing social infrastructure to get there. They didn't achieve their position independent of their social milieu, and it is in their interest to make sure the field they grew in remains fertile and productive.

Anti-intuitive though it seems, history has shown that high tax rates and government regulation creates economic prosperity, jobs and economic growth across the board.
 

Dreamwolf

Blissful Insomniac
My problems exist in these things:
***Please bear in mind that I am not the best a paraphrasing this kind of lingo, so if I have it horribly wrong please let me know. If I have it right please acknowledge that. Either way, please don't attack, I have had more than my fair share of attacks in the last week. I am sick of it. I want to have an actual conversation about this (which is why I came back to this website).

Here is the link to the full text of the bill. Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The following is a partial copy and paste of a full list of summaries that is floating around out there. I don't doubt that some parts of it are wrong, but I can't get a straight answer from an independent source on what part is wrong and right.

Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you.
Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Health care Exchange.
Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

Let me explain my position a little bit. I currently have health insurance through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. I am completely happy with it. It has never refused to pay for anything including a hell of a big bill for one broken leg, several back injuries, nerve damage, etc. They even want me to go back to physical therapy. I don't pay a single dime for this coverage, my employer pays for it out of his pocket (as he does for the rest of his salaried employees). Why would I want to give that up or let the government come in and control it?

Also, my best friend does not have insurance, and that has been the choice of her and her family for three generations. They do not subscribe to modern medicine, and all have ND degrees. So why should they be forced to buy health insurance, or be taxed for something they will never use?

I am fine with reform - it is needed. But I do not support putting the government in control of healthcare. They have not proven to me that they can run so much as a car wash without totaling the car and ending up in a huge deficit. I would appreciate any response, just please understand that I am not trying to be a know it all, I am just trying to get good information.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Socialism removes the incentive to work.
When people abuse the system, it is just as bad as slavery.
Most socialist countries fail because people pretend to work and
There is no reward
I guess some folks will never understand the desire to achieve greatness.

Come now, you know a list of abuses and extremes from a laissez faire capitalist society would be just as bad. Yes, pure socialism is bad, but so is laissez faire capitalism. The thing is, we are already a blended society that has aspects of both and it has worked well. What is needed is to admit that we have and need both systems and work towards a better balance between the two.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My problems exist in these things:
***Please bear in mind that I am not the best a paraphrasing this kind of lingo, so if I have it horribly wrong please let me know. If I have it right please acknowledge that. Either way, please don't attack, I have had more than my fair share of attacks in the last week. I am sick of it. I want to have an actual conversation about this (which is why I came back to this website).

Here is the link to the full text of the bill. Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The following is a partial copy and paste of a full list of summaries that is floating around out there. I don't doubt that some parts of it are wrong, but I can't get a straight answer from an independent source on what part is wrong and right.

Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you.
Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Health care Exchange.
Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

Let me explain my position a little bit. I currently have health insurance through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. I am completely happy with it. It has never refused to pay for anything including a hell of a big bill for one broken leg, several back injuries, nerve damage, etc. They even want me to go back to physical therapy. I don't pay a single dime for this coverage, my employer pays for it out of his pocket (as he does for the rest of his salaried employees). Why would I want to give that up or let the government come in and control it?

Also, my best friend does not have insurance, and that has been the choice of her and her family for three generations. They do not subscribe to modern medicine, and all have ND degrees. So why should they be forced to buy health insurance, or be taxed for something they will never use?

I am fine with reform - it is needed. But I do not support putting the government in control of healthcare. They have not proven to me that they can run so much as a car wash without totaling the car and ending up in a huge deficit. I would appreciate any response, just please understand that I am not trying to be a know it all, I am just trying to get good information.

Who's proposing putting the government in charge of healthcare? Even we single-payer advocates aren't proposing this. We want the Drs and hospitals to remain private and independent.
If you could get coverage better than what you have now at half the price, wouldn't you go for it?
 

Dreamwolf

Blissful Insomniac
Who's proposing putting the government in charge of healthcare? Even we single-payer advocates aren't proposing this. We want the Drs and hospitals to remain private and independent.
If you could get coverage better than what you have now at half the price, wouldn't you go for it?

Unless I am unbelievably far off the mark that is what this bill proposes, a government option for health insurance. I am highly concerned with a private company's ability to compete with such a program, take that to it's natural conclusion and you have government health insurance.
Believe it or not I could get on board with a single-payer system from the way it has been described in this thread. If it was between that and socialized medicine.
But there are also lots of people out there who want complete socialization of healthcare.
I am not sure if you read my post or not, but as I said I do not pay a dime for my private insurance, it doesn't even get deducted from my paycheck. It comes directly from the pocket of my employer (a small business owner).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're in an enviable position, my friend (though I can't help wondering how much more your employer could pay you if he didn't have to pay for this policy). Few people have access to such a policy.

I agree with your assessment of the impact of a government funded non-profit on private, for profit programs, though. It's hard to imagine how they could compete for price, quality or breadth of coverage. They have a legitimate fear that a "government option" would be sucessful and well liked -- and they do not want the public to have access to inexpensive, good quality healthcare. :(
 

Dreamwolf

Blissful Insomniac
I actually get paid extremely well for the job I have in the area I work in. My employer even pays more than double minimum wage plus benifits for his secretary, his view is this increases productivity and loyalty. I can't disagree.

My main thing is that my coverage is already taken care of, but other peoples aren't. They are struggling to pay for theirs, and this plan really does nothing for that. They will still have premiums, only now their ability to seek a different plan would be limited, and their insurance now has to play by government rules - which I find insulting. That basically makes all private plans public. What is the point? To lower cost with competition? Most everyone acknowledges that private will not be able to compete. Only politicians seem to think otherwise, which means they are lying through their teeth.
But for people who will still have premiums they can't afford, they would be lucky to see their price fall even slightly, while some will have theirs drastically increase because they have to upgrade to meet the public option requirement. Not only that, but taxes are going to increase so they can subsidize the people who fall under the magical line of not being able to afford it on their own. So these people are getting kicked not once, but twice. Yet all you hear is how it will be free for everyone. People either don't know enough about this thing or it is not being explained. Because one of the two is true and I am not even sure which one it is. Though according to the townhall thing BO did there will still be premiums to be paid, as well as new tax.
/rant. I really should go to bed - I am becoming incoherent.
 

Inky

Active Member
I put "Other" but I should have put "Socialized Insurance".

I'd be for government-sponsored health insurance available to anyone, that is free for people below a certain income level, discounted for incomes a step above that, and standard price for mid-to-high incomes. Private health insurance companies would probably naturally fall into a niche of offering higher-end plans that have more to them than the government plan, and people with enough money could purchase one of those instead of the government plan if they want. Right now people sometimes choose a more expensive plan with more features over a cheaper plan when they qualify for both, so I don't think this pattern of behavior would go away.

I agree with your assessment of the impact of a government funded non-profit on private, for profit programs, though. It's hard to imagine how they could compete for price, quality or breadth of coverage. They have a legitimate fear that a "government option" would be sucessful and well liked -- and they do not want the public to have access to inexpensive, good quality healthcare. :(

Haha, frubals.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What, exactly, would government insurance policies do, that couldn't be done much more simply and efficiently with a socialized or single payer system? Government sponsored insurance sounds like a Rube Goldberg and, I suspect, a backdoor insurance industry full employment scheme.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
What, exactly, would government insurance policies do, that couldn't be done much more simply and efficiently with a socialized or single payer system? Government sponsored insurance sounds like a Rube Goldberg and, I suspect, a backdoor insurance industry full employment scheme.

There is something I've been advocating in Canada for years called two-tiered healthcare. It's what I think is the best solution to all the downfalls of the socialized system (and there are some).

A two-tiered system has both private and public hospitals. If the rich want to get faster, better quality care, they can pay to go to a private hospital. But everyone pays taxes to support the public hospital which offers everyone good quality care. Too bad so many in Canada are opposed to it.

And I think that would be an excellent transition for the US, instead of going to a socialized system cold turkey.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Not sure what category it would fit under but imo the biggest problem with health care in the U.S. is the price/cost. So we need to get that down for best results. For instance. When I was in Germany I had to go to the emergency room, got admitted, then had laser surgery and spend 3 days in the hospital. I freaked out because I had no insurance at the time. Few weeks later got the bill in the mail......900 Euros. I could hardly believe it. The same ER visit, surgery, and 3 day stay in any hospital here in the states would have been at the very least $10,000-$20,000 without insurance. Just to put it into more perspective I had kidney stone trouble about 2 years ago. I had no idea at the time what it was other than I had mind numbing pain in my gut. Rushed to the ER (had insurance this time but they would not cover it because it was not life threatening), they gave me some morphine, and a prescription for some pain killers and sent me on my way, was there an hour or so. Got the bill later on $989. Its highway robbery and insurance is pretty much pointless because they almost always find a loop hole to not pay up and keep their profits up.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
My solution is indeterminate.
What I'd do:
Form a committee of analysts from Thomson Reuters Health Care Division.
They & I would engineer a system with no outside input whatsoever....especially from government, AARP, or any other partisan entity.
What would the result be?
I don't know, but I'm sure that most people would disapprove.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think "socialized medicine" is being used somewhat indiscriminately here. I'm not always sure what system's being referred to.

T-Dawg: Are you referring to the Beveridge System, used in Britain and the US Veteran's Administration, where Hospitals are government owned and run and healthcare personnel are government employees? (this is the only true "socialized medicine" system).

Trey: This sounds like the Bismark System, used in Germany, France, Japan, &al. Everyone is required to carry insurance, but the insurance is non-profit. The hospitals are generally private. (Sort of like a non-profit "Obama-Care).
The specifics vary widely.

Personally, I still lean toward the National Health Insurance (NHI) system, used in Taiwan, the US Medicare system, and Canada. Here the government is the single insurer/payer, but the medical facilities and personnel remain private.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top