OK Repubs QUESTION

[VolinArizona]

FineVol - the reason this country is headed for the ****ter is for a few reasons, but the main one being this:

The American dream is now 'live out of my means and make poor decisions, then let the government bail me out."

I almost feel like that's obvious.

My point? Obama would unequivocally ENHANCE this approach for people, because it would become easier to live that way - less negative consequences for negative actions.

I know people on here don't like Glenn Beck, but underneath his snark and sarcasm, he has a dead on opinion on this country.

Cramer from Mad Money has some nice financial ideas as well.

Again, I know people think those 2 are putzes, but I really identify with them. This country is failing because people take no responsibility. Obama's stated platforms and plans would undoubtedly continue that trend.

And no, I don't like McCain, either.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by VolByBirth

How so? I guess it depends on what each person feels the problems are.

the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.

[hndog609]

I think a great deal of making medical care more accessable would be things like tort reform and the general cost of doing the healthcare to begin with. It costs an incredible amount to provide health care and the insurance companies and lawyers are up to their necks in it. There are some places, I believe Nevada was one of them, where OB/GYN docs were simply leaving or retiring since you just couldn't afford to insure your practice. Like anything, costs are passed on to the customers, but when the costs being passed on are passed on to YOURSELF it gets pretty ugly. When an insurance company charges you X amount for health insurance which is jacked up because the insurance company is demanding Y amount of money from your healthcare provider to cover their butts from the lawyers then...well...

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by hndog609

I think a great deal of making medical care more accessable would be things like tort reform and the general cost of doing the healthcare to begin with. It costs an incredible amount to provide health care and the insurance companies and lawyers are up to their necks in it. There are some places, I believe Nevada was one of them, where OB/GYN docs were simply leaving or retiring since you just couldn't afford to insure your practice. Like anything, costs are passed on to the customers, but when the costs being passed on are passed on to YOURSELF it gets pretty ugly. When an insurance company charges you X amount for health insurance which is jacked up because the insurance company is demanding Y amount of money from your healthcare provider to cover their butts from the lawyers then...well...

Agreed completely. But look no further than the most prevalent profession of our elected officials: lawyers -- almost all of them. No wonder we are such a litigious society.

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.

So do you think a government-free health care industry would provide better care as a whole? I still think that increasing shareholders wealth and satisfactory health care are competing problems. I'm not sure I trust company execs to look after my well being when their main goal is maximizing profits.

MediCare is certainly a debacle though.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by VolByBirth

So do you think a government-free health care industry would provide better care as a whole? I still think that increasing shareholders wealth and satisfactory health care are competing problems. I'm not sure I trust company execs to look after my well being when their main goal is maximizing profits.

how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by MG1968

how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.

absolutely correct.

the best companies in the world have figures out that B begets A.

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by MG1968

how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.

Agreed, but I believe those are different business models. Those are product or service industries. Insurance doesn't perfectly fit either.

The issue is that the proper health care -- as a collective for society -- is best served by preventative/proactive measures to minimize disease and it's effects prior to onset. However, that model doesn't work unless someone has the same health care for life. For example, if Person A uses Healthcare X for the first 15 years of their working life (let's say 20-35) then their costs are relatively low (based on percentages). Healthcare X is not going to pay for proactive, preventative health care for Person A that would greatly reduce their costs later in life because there is a good likelihood that person will not be with them once they hit an age where their overall costs rise. The model is backwards because of the need for profit maximization. Perfect health care is altruistic (and also impossible), which directly conflicts with company cost-cutting and profit making.

It's kind of interesting though -- insurance in it's base form is nothing more than a business form of socialism. It pools enough money from individuals at small levels to be able to pay for those that need it (by using the premiums from those that don't). Nothing more than taking from the healthy and giving to the sick. And yes, I'm excluding insurance's ability to invest the premiums -- but remember, they make a profit too.

This is why there is government intervention as it stands now. Of course, we certainly can't expect them to get it right...and they have proved us right in this regard.

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

absolutely correct.

the best companies in the world have figures out that B begets A.

I'm not disagreeing with that.....I'm just saying that's not what happens with health care. I don't know enough about total costs, etc to know if a "good model" is cost-effective, but as it stands -- it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by VolByBirth

I'm not disagreeing with that.....I'm just saying that's not what happens with health care. I don't know enough about total costs, etc to know if a "good model" is cost-effective, but as it stands -- it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.

so, do you think Ted Kennedy would have received the same level of care had he went to a public hospital in one of the poorer sections of Boston?

[GAVol]

Originally Posted by VolByBirth

it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that I'd venture to guess that profit motive has yielded many of the advances in medicine that we take for granted today.

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by GAVol

The problem with that line of reasoning is that I'd venture to guess that profit motive has yielded many of the advances in medicine that we take for granted today.

Actually, I'm very familiar with this and most all advances are from grant-based research (whether through private or public funding).

[VolByBirth]

Originally Posted by MG1968

so, do you think Ted Kennedy would have received the same level of care had he went to a public hospital in one of the poorer sections of Boston?

I'm not sure I'm following your logic so I'll say no and let you respond and go from there.

[Business]

Originally Posted by Fine Vol

Guys if it is as bad as you say it is then why would ANYONE ever want UHC?

It sounds wonderful to the uneducated, poor, and whimsical Americans. The type of votes Obama needs.