I agree that tort reform is needed. I believe Canada limits the amount of money families can be rewarded for malpractice. (But wait, Canada does not have any good ides?? )
What makes you say the government can't run Medicare? It's an efficient, well run program considering all of the external factors. Maybe not you, but there are a group of posters on this forum who have their panties in a knot over the threat of "socialized" medicine, but we all ready have it for one segment of our population- The Veterans Administration. I've not heard anyone nashing their teeth over that. I was in the system for all most 10 years and was happy with the medical care I received in the Military.
Did you honestly just tell me that MediCare is an efficient system? Have you ever had to deal with it before? The system is wholly unsustainable, and there aren't enough funds to keep it going for very much longer. The MediCare trust fund is set to run out of money in 2018, even while it reduces the amount of money it pays medical providers and increases premiums to beneficiaries. That certainly doesn't seem like the model of efficiency that you're claiming.
You just lost all semblance of rational thought discussing the issue. You have a case of conservative phobia.
Here's an idea; why don't you stick to rational discussion, rather than resorting to ad homonym attacks.
Now, please explain to me how what I've said can't become true in a socialistic health care system. If the government is in charge of health care, and believe me they'll be in charge of almost all of it eventually if this goes through, but I'll address that in a bit; they have a monopoly on the system by default, and can do whatever they want to do. They're already trying to think for you by trying to make smoking illegal, and raising taxes on it to an exorbitant level... the next logical step would be to tell you that you can't get health care because you smoke. It's not a leap in logic, but rather simply the next logical progression from where we are now, to where we would be in that system, to where we would be going.
I don't have a case of conservative phobia, I simply have an extreme distrust of government in it's current form, and am a strong believer in smaller government. The government should be limited to it's 10th amendment rights, those are the rights given it by the constitution.
Now, as for my comment on government becoming completely in charge of health care; the House bill, as it stands now, contains verbiage that would make all new private insurance policies basically illegal, but would grandfather in existing policies. So while it wouldn't become a complete Canadian-esque system overnight, it would eventually become that. If you don't believe me, I really encourage you to go look it up for yourself.
Fascinating argument, care to elaborate why you think it's BS, rather that simply claiming it's BS, with nothing to back it up.
If you look at the history of the democrat party since LBJ, you will see that they have been trying (and succeeding in a lot of cases) to expand the powers of the federal government in people's everyday lives. Smoking, as I mentioned earlier, is an extremely good example of that. So why don't you try to rebut my argument rather than making pathetic statements that it's BS without actually having any proof that it is.
How about they are 100 times worse? You guys seem mostly to be anti-big government, but you support a group of bozos who would sell your liberties in a heart beat to create a fascist state? Spend spend spend, until we loose control of government and then we recover our hypocritical fiscal senses... It boggles the mind. Ok, the entire Republican party is not like that, except they all dropped into lock step when it came all the really shitty decisions of the last Administration that even if you want to blame Clinton for some of todays problems, they (the Republicans) were in office for 8 years and more than enough time to fix the problems, except for one thing. They are too star struck by profits, whether it is large health or war profiteering companies, and they can say it all they want, but the only concern they have for every day people comes after the profits. Because when it comes to people, the Republican/conservative motto is "we can't afford it, sorry".
First off... I'm not a republican, nor have I voted for the republican candidate in the last two presidential elections (I was two weeks too young for the 2000 election, but I wouldn't have voted for Bush then either). I don't have a political party affiliation, but I generally vote libertarian, or at the very least fiscally conservative. However, I'm socially liberal and support legalization of marijuana, I voted no on California's Prop 8, and I don't believe that it's okay for the government to have the ability to control what I can and cannot legally do. The republicans were in power of the presidency, senate, and house for six years, not eight, and two of those six they had such a razor thin majority that even if they had tried to do anything groundbreaking a'la the contract of America, they more than likely wouldn't have had the votes to do it.
I think that the Bush administration did a lot of things to destroy this country... the Patriot act (that nearly every single member of congress voted for mind you, republican and democrat alike) chief among them. Don't even start talking about how the republicans are all about profits either... because while that may be the case, look at some of Obama's contributors, because he's not an awful lot better. Then add in his ties to organizations like ACORN, and then try to tell me that he doesn't have an agenda every bit as nefarious as what you're pointing fingers at the republicans for.
Every conservative in this forum is all concerned about is health care a right and you all want the Constitution amended to spell out health care? Where does the Constitution lay out Medicare and the Veterans Administration health coverage? It's just another conservative road block to stop it.
They don't... and I don't believe those systems should necessarily even exist, along with social security. People shouldn't be forced to put money into a government program in order for others to be able to have benefits later on in life. I should be able to take the money that I am taxed for Social Security and MediCare, and to invest that money how I see fit... by putting it in the bank, into bonds, into a 401k, into whatever I think will help me survive when I retire. That would include purchasing my own health care with the same money as well. My great-grandma, who is actually probably going to die this week, is 98 years old, and has been retired for nearly 40 years, and the money that she's lived off of has come from her pension plan she had with the City of Santa Cruz (where she worked for 30 years), her own investments, and residuals from property she owns and the sale of her personal home about fifteen years ago. She hasn't had to rely on Social Security or MediCare, and I believe everyone should have the choice.
Any governmental program that benefits people is a terrible idea as far as conservatives are concerned. But the government fills many important roles that private industry doesn't want any part of (unless substantial profits are involved). Even though we are not going for a Canadian style system, the Canadian system is very popular, as in 85%. The number one priority of health care must be people and not profits. Conservatives did not want Medicare when it was enacted (1965) to cover those over 65. And it works well. No one is screaming about the V.A. Universal health care is an extension of that philosophy which will cover more, hopefully all of our citizens.
Any government program that is wasteful, insolvent, and could otherwise be handled by the private sector is a terrible idea as far as I'm concerned. Again, if you had anything to do with the health care industry or had to deal with being covered by MediCare, I seriously doubt that you would claim that it works well. I personally haven't had to deal with the VA system, from what I've been told by those that have, it's very similar to the Kaiser view of health care, where you can only go to certain doctors, certain physicians, and there is an incredible amount of control over what is treated, what is not, etc.
Retro -
Great post. I would add yet ANOTHER key element that must be addressed: Pharmaceuticals.
It's not lost on me that the rapid inflation of medical costs coincides exactly with the advent of public, consumer-direct advertising of individual medications. Once people were told to "ask your doctor" about this drug and that drug, the demand/supply balance went haywire and costs went right along with it.
You're very correct, I can't believe that I completely left out the pharmaceutical industry. I've advocated that commercials for medications be taken out of the market completely or severely limited (partially because I don't want to hear, "viva viagra" on my television anymore)... because people shouldn't be deciding what medication they think that they should be on before they ever get to the doctor... similarly, doctors shouldn't be prescribing meds simply by patient request.
I also think that more generic drugs should be allowed on the market, that the patents that protect a drug for a certain company need to be limited. Either that, or they need to lower the costs on the medications themselves... because it's ridiculous that a "name brand" version of a medication can cost $150 for a month's supply and not be covered by insurance, while the generic is $40, and completely covered. I'm not pulling those numbers out of a hat either... that's what Wellbutrin XL 300mg costs for name brand and prescription for a 30-day supply... so needless to say, I use the generic.
Do I have to point out to you that pensions are about to become extinct in this country?
