"Support for Healthcare Plan Falls to All Time Low"

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Not so much on the issue, but how the hell does Liberman still have a political career? The man can't seem to stand on one leg before hopping to the other foot.

Actually, I'd say he's one of the most consistent politicians going today. His stance on issues remains largely the same as it's ever been. He was against Bill Clinton's public healthcare plan as well.

He hasn't moved to the right... the Dems have moved to the left.

[TheGame]

imo Liberman isn't a real democrat, nor does he have the best intentions for the party at heart. Never has. He just says whatever he can to keep his seat. So I don't see this as either Liberman moving to the right, or the Dems moving to the left.

[Dylflon]

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

My knee jerk reaction to any universal government run healthcare system would be to say "No", but I will entertain any plan that is offered. As for targeted gov. healthcare, I currently like the idea of MedicAid, if not everything about it's delivery.

I will support any plan that controls costs, allows people to choose what type of healthcare they will receive (including their own doctors) or even if they want it, and does not ration care to make ends meet. I have never seen a government run plan that meets any of these requirements.

I actually think government "assistance" is a great idea, meaning using the government to organize the 15% of Americans who don't have health insurance and then present them as a group to insurers to bid on the group as a whole. This is called "risk pooling" and would make this group an economically viable group to insure at reasonable rates. Right now the uninsured must shop as an individual, and the system is built to address groups and manage risk, leaving the individual with few products aimed at them and they are all expensive. I would even be in favor of tax credits to help these people afford the care if they aren't poor enough to qualify for MedicAid.

My main problem with government run anything is that it tends to provide low service and stagnate innovation. Look at telecommunications: For years this was an industry carefully regulated by the government to ensure that everyone had access. While everyone had access, the access was terrible. For decades you had to be issued a phone from the company, rotary phones at that, and eventually push buttons. If you wanted to save mesages, you had to buy an answering machine.

Since deregulation, the products and services have gone through the roof and prices have never been better due to intense competition between companies. We're starting to see it now in Cable TV as well, as Verizon and Comcast start beating each other up. That doesn't mean "free" markets are always the answer. I think cell phone companies need to have the trust-busting hammer come down on them to unlock phones from contracts because I think these "phone-to-service" contracts are artificially raising costs of data service to mobile phones (I mean you, AT&T and Verizon). I don't believe in free markets, I believe in competitive markets (and no, that does not include the US government as a competitor, just a regulator and arbiter). Free markets can become uncompetitive one company dominates the rest and then it harms the consumer because once there is no competition there is no reason to control costs (only to maximize profit).

Yes, I know healthcare isn't phone service, but it shares many of the same challenges (universal service being the main one) and they've managed to control costs and improve service 10 gold by carefully deregulating and ensuring competition. Right now, healthcare remains one of the most regulated services in the country, not even being able to compete over state lines. There is no room for competition to naturally reduce costs and increase service. Those that claim that the current healthcare problems are caused by open markets don't know what an open market is.

Hope that better illustrates my point of view.

EDIT: Game, if your posts are aimed at me, I wouldn't bother. I set you to ignore after our last debate. I find thats the best way to have a rational conversation with you.

[Typhoid]

I've always found the idea of "Health Insurance" silly. Smart in a beurocratic way - everyone is alive, and frequently people get hurt - so you'd make a lot of money on insurance.


I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about American healthcare, nor healthcare in Canada for that matter.

This much I know, and this much I think should be offered to everyone:

I was out of work because of a car accident, and due to not working full time previously - I don't have a medical plan (due to not being able to afford it, and not having a full-time job, not being covered) - yet I still needed to get X-Rays on my back and legs. Instead of having to repay massive debts, I don't even get a piece of paper to sign. No "The mail will be sent to you." Just right out the door. If you can't afford it, it's provided for you. When you can afford it, you pay for it as you should. However, healthcare is the probably the most basic of needs aside from food and water, and I think that everyone, everywhere should be entitled to it nomatter who they are, where they are, or how much income they have - and whatever the cost to make it happen is. Your body is not a car or a house.

That wasn't directed at everyone, just my thoughts.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

This much I know, and this much I think should be offered to everyone

I think we can agree on that point. In America, regardless of whether or not you are insured, you receive healthcare. It's the law. You can't be turned away (I know here are horrible exceptions, but they remain in every country, regardless of healthcare systems) and every year our healthcare system loses millions if not billions of dollars treating the uninsured, and in the end everyone else ends up paying for it with increased premiums to insurance companies, and part of this is what makes insurance so expensive for individuals.

We all agree that there needs to be a solution that gets everyone covered, from both a health and cost perspective. I simply differ on the idea that universal government control is the best solution, and have presented my best arguments to support that idea. Government backstop plans like MediCare (wow, did I really spell it MedicAir before, like it's an airline?) are useful and necessary, but I just don't think they should be the norm as they are inefficient, provide a lower standard of care by their nature and are extraordinarily poor payers.