A Quick Note on Socialized Health Care
Here’s a brief chat on socialized medicine and the economic problems inherent in it. It’s brief, because I’m tired and had a crappy day. I’ll leave the more important moral and civil rights arguments for another day.
The current health care system is all kinds of screwed up. One of the primary sources of this problem is our historical blunder into employer-provided health insurance. This quirk of the system came about during FDR’s administration when he froze wages, so businesses were forced to offer other benefits in order to attract employees. But what this has done is put a couple of layers of insulation between the health care consumer and the health care provider. Since the employer pays most of the health insurance premiums and the insurance company pays the bill, the health care consumer has zero market motivation to be efficient and intelligent about their health care usage.
This problem has been aggravated by the insurers’ and providers refusing to disclose either actual costs or an objective measure of the quality of care for the health care consumer to make an informed decision.
So what would socialized health care do to the situation?
Socialized medicine essentially eliminates the myriad of health insurance companies and replaces them with a single payer - the government. The initial effect is to increase the overall cost because the government program will cover a bunch of people who weren’t previously covered. Since they are now covered, they are more likely to use more health care.
Socialized health care does not rectify this problem. Even though the insurance companies are gone, there is still a separation between the consumer and the provider that will result in people overusing health care unless they are restricted.
Now socialized health care does hold a more significant market advantage for consumers when it comes to cost. The government, being the sole payer for health care, can essentially dictate the price of health care services. But there are some problems with this. If the government dictates a price for a health care service that is below the actual cost of that service, it will drive that service out of Wisconsin and reduce access to that particular service. For example, let’s say that the market price for a heart operation is $100,000, but the government of Wisconsin will only pay $60,000. Many of the doctors who perform those operations will simply move to another state to continue their practice. So the government will face a choice: match the market price or reduce access.
If the government can’t avoid market prices, there is only one other way to reduce the cost of services: rationing. The government can reduce the demand for services by rationing health care services.
Given the political realities that we have seen with other American experiments with socialized health care (Medicare, Medicaid, BadgerCare, etc.), the public pushes for more services - regardless of cost. What Wisconsin politician is going to tell Granny that she has to wait on her hip replacement because we only budgeted for 700 of them this year?
In Europe, where they largely have socialized health care, rationing is common. People often wait an extraordinary amount of time for procedures that are commonplace in America. Also, the government dictates care. For example, in most of Europe, they treat prostate cancer very differently than in America. 80%+ of men will get prostate cancer in their lives - usually when they are old. If you are quite old in Europe and get prostate cancer, they will likely deny any treatment because… well… you’re old. This is a perfectly rational decision, but it’s the government that makes it - not the patient or the doctor. In America, this likely wouldn’t fly. Our culture is different and we would demand that our government pay for all extraordinary measures.
It’s difficult for me to see how socialized health care would result in lower health care costs in American culture without onerous government rationing or reducing access.
The one place where socialized medicine may reduce cost is in administration. Naturally, the government doesn’t need a marketing department or other departments that insurance companies require. It also doesn’t need to worry about their market share, stock price, or claims department. By eliminating all of these departments that private companies need, the government would likely have lower administration costs.
Like I have said before, my primary opposition to socialized health care is based in morality and liberty, but I don’t see it working economically either unless we are willing to ration care or drive health care providers out of Wisconsin, thus reducing access.
Well, there is a provision that allows the “Healthy Wisconsin Authority” to ration health care in order to “control prices”...so even Senate Dems know that will be necessary.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0123 hrsOkay, Owen. Let’s take a look at the Republicans plan and we can compare them point-by-point and begin a negotiation process.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0627 hrsSo do you not understand that private insurance and private providers are not affected in their ability to provide insurance and treatment under this plan, or do you choose to ignore that aspect because it weakens your argument?
1) The Dems haven’t proposed single payer
2) If you think that the administration component is simply marketing, then you don’t understand the problem. The issue is bureacracy to provide services to customers. The administration to bill and collect on behalf of hospitals and clinics. The time to negotiate and formulate packages for employers. 30 cents on the dollar goes to administration under our health care system.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0709 hrsLefty… try to follow along…
1) In this post, I am not addressing the plan that the Senate Dems put up. I am speaking generally.
2) Did I not also mention the “claims department”? Yes, I believe I did.
As a father of 4, a graduate of a reputable business school, and a professional who works with insurance companies all over the state, I am well aware of how our health system works (and doesn’t work).
Posted by Owen on June 27, 2007 at 0717 hrsDoes this pile of stuff proposed by the Senate of the Peoples Republic here contain a provision that if a company supplies insurance, they don’t have to pay the taxes? Or are they still taxed at some level. Because the 15B / 510 per worker per month / 12 months = 2.45M workers. About alf the state has to be in on the fun, or all the workers except teachers and gov union types. Wait, it’s still all the workers. The others are just “serving” us.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0739 hrsA private insurance company has some incentive to reduce health care costs of the services actually provided. It faces competetion from other private insurers who may potentially have lower rates and companies have been very aggressive about switching plans in order to find lower rates. Additionally, employees in private companies can have a great deal of say about what their plan will cover and what their deductibles will be. Finally, private employers have access to people capable of competently managing such systems.
Government has no incentive to lower costs for actual services. IIt faces no competition. t will simply raise taxes to cover costs, or reduce the services provided. Those are the easy solutions. Additionally, it solicits little public input and will actually impede people’s ability to control their own health care costs. Finally, the government has never shown any ability to manage something like this.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0754 hrsGovernment has no incentive to lower costs for actual services. IIt faces no competition. t will simply raise taxes to cover costs, or reduce the services provided. Those are the easy solutions. Additionally, it solicits little public input and will actually impede people’s ability to control their own health care costs. Finally, the government has never shown any ability to manage something like this.
I agree…
People who make healthy life choices can DRASTICALLY reduce their expenditures on healthcare.
With government provided healthcare everyone is going to pay for the healthcare system thru taxation (and all the inderect price increases of products and services of companies who will look to cover the additional tax burden put on them as likely liberals will call for to ‘sell’ this to the average joe)
When everyone pays for healthcare wether they use it or not, they will no longer be able to chose to make healthy choices in order to save money. Those who make healthy choices will still be paying for healthcare wether they use it or not.
Healthcare is expensive because WE USE IT SO MUCH.
I’m coming to think that even as a libertarian, perhaps I am for a new law. MANDATORY economics education from middle school on.
Maybe then people will finally realize that you CAN’T get something for nothing.
The laws of supply and demand are as solid as the laws of physics.
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction…
You cannot buck the laws of supply and demand. If you try the market WILL adjust and the big picture will not have changed a bit. You may have cheaper healthcare, but you won’t have as much healthcare. Somewhere the market will equalize.
Perhaps socialists do realize this and they just think somehow the market will equalize itself on the backs of the wealthy and corporations. Anyone but themselves. Flawed thinking. Those entities will adjust and defer the costs back to where the market allows.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 0944 hrsWow, that’s one long brief chat. I’m not here to defend the Dem’s plan, but if we’re going to point the free-market flashlight at health care, let’s be sure to look in all the corners. Yes, plenty of the problems are cultural and inherited from past generations. Most citizens can’t manage their own personal finances to be black instead of red, so it doesn’t surprise me that they can’t grasp health care costs, either. There are plenty who still think smoking is cool, that overeating is the Wisconsin Way, that riding an ATV is a thrilling and safe weekend activity without consequence, that drinking and driving has little consequence beyond the threat of a ticket, that drinking and boating has even fewer risks.
Let’s be sure to shine the light into the Federal policies on drug development, production and sale. Let’s look at government subsidy and protection for private hospitals, private drug companies, medical device companies. Let’s look at past culture that thought it would be a good idea to have a safety net to provide minimal health care to the poor. Dang that New Testament!
“It’s difficult for me to see how socialized health care would result in lower health care costs in American culture without onerous government rationing or reducing access.”
Let’s remove the words “socialized” and “government” from that sentence for a moment as a thought experiment and see if it makes any difference. What advantages would a private health insurance provider have if they had a majority of the market in Wisconsin - say, 80%. They’d have a large pool of insured to spread the risk. They’ve benefit from the scale of a uniform billing policy and administrative management system. With that much market inertia, they could implement a lot of rationing and reduced access and high co-pay before buyers would flee, especially if there were few other choices from smaller providers with smaller pools. They’d have a lot of clout in using the cost of services to help shape healthy behaviors among the insured, if indeed that was any part of their goals. Would it be? Why?
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1233 hrsWouldn’t that be a monopoly? Aren’t those things illegal or, heh, government regulated?
How about a situation where insurance companies aren’t the one’s dictating health care access and prices, but rather the actual consumers of health care services? Or would I be giving the ignorant overeating, smoking, drinking, ATV riding, masses too much credit? I guess we need a Big Brother to look out for our best interests because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.
Posted by Matt on June 27, 2007 at 1353 hrsNo monopoly. I described my hypothetical dominant private health care provider to show that it’s not hard to imagine a private company doing all the same bad things trotted out as reasons why we wouldn’t want the government in the health care business.
I mean, it’s fun to imagine we’re all living in Galt’s Gulch, but reality intrudes. It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that the government isn’t already heavily involved in the health care industry. Read this summary, compare their bennies to yours.
And what of the ATV-riding artery-clogged smokers? Any insurer wants to be Big Brother, private or not. Why shouldn’t they want to know what you do, and charge according to the risks you incur? You think you should be able to live a risky, unhealthly life and make others pay for it?
If the problem is that people don’t care about health care costs because their employers are paying for it, then perhaps someone should lead a movement to encourage people to deny their employer’s benefits and march right out and buy some private health care coverage on their own, because we all know how good and tasty those packages can be - Can I get a “heck yeah” from all my small-business owners in the house?
Posted by John Foust on June 27, 2007 at 1739 hrsGood post, Owen. Some good points, mostly boilerplate talking points, all things to consider.
Your main complaints are as follows:
1>Initial costs will rise from covering everyone.
Yes, probably. But I hope at business school they taught you about long-term cost analysis and making investments that have long-term gains. It stands to reason that covering everyone will cost more initially, but it should also be self evident that if cost is no longer a barrier to preventative (i.e. maintenance) care, then future dollars will be saved because emergency-room visits and chronic diseases will be prevented.
In other words, it makes some sense to spend $10 today to avoid paying $500 in the future, does it not?
2> The cost of the thing will skyrocket unless there is rationing.
First, every single objective study shows that our fellow industrialized nations with socialized medicine spend less for better results. Again, they spend less for a superior product. Objectively there’s no reason to be for a system that costs more but produces less effectively, so your opposition is based on emotion. Typical.
Anyway, yes there will be rationing. Guess what Owen, the private market rations. Does everyone who wants one have a new BMW in the driveway? Do I get as many fries as I want with my Big Mac Value Meal? Do private insurers ever turn down services they deem “unnecessary” due to cost constraints?
3> We Americans don’t want our health care rationed, we want the best and we want it right now.
Guess what Owen, that’s expensive. If everyone thought they deserved the best car right now, BMW and Mercedes would have waiting lists regardless of the cost. If you know as much about health care as you claim, you’d know that health care providers routinely make decisions that are not cost effective. They buy the latest and greatest (expensive) technology regardless of the costs because the consumer thinks technology equates to better care. They do so because they know they can recover the costs because A>people don’t have to pay the full cost so they don’t care and B>people want the best right now.
4>My complaint with socialized medicine isn’t rational (it cannot possibly be if you’re opposed to a system that costs less and produces better results), it’s based on morality.
Answer me this, Owen: is health care like a BMW? Certainly not everyone is entitled to the best car right now. They can but a Ford or a Kia or a Hyundai if they cannot afford a BMW, and few people would sanely shed a tear. The car market, like every other market, rations products or services based on ability to pay.
Should health care be distributed based on ability to pay? Should some guy who’s not bright and who makes $10 an hour because that’s all he’s ever going to be qualified to make be denied health care because he cannot pay? Which is more moral, giving you the choice of which expensive health plan to buy, or making sure the $10 an hour guy receives coverage? What if we could design a plan that does both instead of creating the false dichotomy you do which says there’s either liberty or there’s a tyrannical system that gives everyone whatever care they want without restriction and regardless of the cost to the taxpayer?
What about the $10 an hour worker’s kid? What if he’s born with Spina Bifida? What if he’s born with a hole in his heart? Do your pro-life credentials demand he receive life-saving treatment or do your individual liberty credentials demand the poor $10 an hour sap come up with the money to pay for his newborn son’s care on his own?
I bet you think I’m being emotional bringing up children. Maybe a little, but I know it happens. I happen to have a spouse who works at Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin. She sees it all the time - the vast majority of her patients are Medicaid-eligible kids.
So what is it Owen, should health care be based on ability to pay? Or do we help people who cannot afford to pay? And if we’re going to give help to people who cannot afford to pay, on what planet does it make sense to deny them help until their problem costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat instead of giving them help when it costs a few hundred dollars?
You might also do some actual research on the Canadian system. Like, real objective research that has no agenda. You’d find that while the system’s customers have complaints, they overwhelmingly support keeping their system socialized and they overwhelmingly support their system versus ours.
Remember Owen: they get better results than we do at less cost. That fact is not in dispute. I thought it was Liberals who governed by emotion, not you clear-thinking conservatives.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2008 hrsThis is so frustrating!!! Many people that seem to be in favor of the government health care try to trot out the argument that private health care and insurance is screwed up and too expensive. You can not use that to justify a government system. That is a false dilemma fallacy. Bad logic.
How and how much private citizens decide to pay for their health care is between them and their providers. It is a private decision and can not be used to justify public policy. If socialized medicine is either good or a right or both, make that argument.
example:
1)people have a right to be healthy
2)the only way to be healthy is to have professional health care
3)people can not afford professional health care
THEREFORE:
4)professional health care must be provided for peopleThat is an example of a deductive argument based on deontological principles of rights/duties. Now if I do not agree with this argument, then I am left with attacking the truth of the premises (1 thru 3) or the reasoning between the premises and the conclusion (4).
Now will some of you who are in favor of this kind of plan please present your argument instead of fallacies and sound bites.
How bad the insurance companies are has nothing to do with whether or not we should provide everyone health care. For example, I choose to go to an overpriced, inefficient, and crooked auto mechanic therefore everyone should have free auto care. AND I AM NOT EQUATING HEALTH CARE AND CAR MAINTENANCE!!! I AM SHOWING IN A SIMPLE FASHION HOW THE LOGIC MOST FREQUENTLY BEING USED IS FALSE!!!
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2011 hrs
(sorry for yelling)
TadAnotherTosaVoter, by what measure do other countries produce better results? The USA, for instance, has significantly higher rates of survival for cancer than Europe, and better screening.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2125 hrsPut down the Red Bull for a second Tad.
The problem with slapping labels on proposed solutions like “socialism” is that they get you so riled up that a rational consideration if beyond reach.
You really have to ask yourself, is this current system working? It might be working great for you right now, but what’s prompting even people who presently enjoy good coverage have read or witnessed plenty of cases where people’s coverage have been whipped due to a sudden job loss or someone either comes down with a serious disease or is involved in a bad accident—not often a lifestyle cause—and they have to fight their insurance company for coverage. As if there isn’t enough stress in their lives.
The insurance companies are definitely in the driver’s seat and if you think how much you pay is between you and your provider, then you generally can negotiate between a hell of a lot of money and a damn crap-load of money.
What we have to work with is not between insurance companies and the government, it’s between insurance companies and a big olympic sized risk pool.
The point has been made above that people are getting too much healthcare. What is the evidence for that? Is it being ranked 32nd or lower on virtually health category ranking?
We have to do for ourselves what is practical, not what conforms to a philosophy. Philosophy is for late night dorm rooms.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2126 hrsWe have to do for ourselves what is practical, not what conforms to a philosophy. Philosophy is for late night dorm rooms.
So you want a government that does whatever it deems “practical” completely devoid of philosophy, ideology, the concepts of freedom of speech, property rights, and everything else upon which our nation is based? Hell, it’s pretty practical to jail suspected terrorists without due process or civil rights in Gitmo. Is that cool with you?
Posted by Owen on June 27, 2007 at 2146 hrsKnow anybody in Canada who has been seriously ill? I do. The Canadian “health care” system nearly killed him, and put him in debt up to his eyeballs. He couldn’t get in to see doctors when he needed them. Prescriptions set him back $800 a month. He needed a simple diabetic supply that costs about $5k here and is approved by virtually all health insurance companies here. He couldn’t get it there because it wasn’t approved. He ended up spending months in a hospital--two hours away from home. Thankfully, he was able to get the pump he needed by offering to work for a medical supply company for nothing. They gave it to him in exchange for work, and a sympathetic doctor implanted it.
His case isn’t unusual.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2147 hrsNot when it is philosophy devoid of reality. I Kant go for that.
By the by, it’s not practical to do the Cheney way in Gitmo Owen. In case you haven’t noticed what has gone on in Gitmo is in violation of our legal principles, all of which are based on pragmatic ideas.
Am I getting this right Owen? You are against what is going on at Gitmo? My ticker can only stand so many shocks.
Notice you all have once again anothertosavoter has been pretty much left alone, although BV was able to dig up the one thing relating to cancer. But on the other hand the Europeans aren’t laying down but are aggressively working to correct the situation—http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh tml?xml=/news/2007/05/10/ncancer10.xml.
Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 2238 hrsOK, I get you. So it’s OK for the government to act on the basis of philosophy as long as it’s your philosophy. Gotche
Posted by Owen on June 27, 2007 at 2242 hrs
One more time Owen. It’s philosophy mixed with pragmatism. Furthermore philosophy without boundaries—Nazism, Stahlinistic Communism, Cheneyism etc.—that kills.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 0538 hrsOk kr, I’ll bite. I’ve never seen one single shred of evidence suggesting that Europe has better health care than the USA. Further, I’ve never seen one study purporting to show that Americans pay more for health care that doesn’t go through some torture to try to jack up the value of the dollar relative to other currencies in order to inflate what Americans pay. Finally, Canadians consistently report lower satisfaction with their health care relative to the USA, and their doctors show are positively gloomy. All that, of course, relies on the validity of polls which you seem to cherish so much.
Ever been to Canada? If you’re an American you can’t go 15 feet into the place without someone whining to you about their health care
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 0746 hrsI was in Vancouver for a few days and no one whined to me about their health care…
Not that I’m necessarily in favor of socialized medicine, but anecdotes of bad experiences with socialized medicine do not prove that it’s a terrible system, I’m sure there are as many stories of misery from people trying to get proper care coverage out of their insurance companies in this country.
Posted by Matt on June 28, 2007 at 0831 hrsI agree completely, Matt. Now where has it ever been shown that any other country is providing better health care to people? You can argue cost. You can argue method of delivery. You will have a difficult time arguing “better”.
Go to Quebec. Better food.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 0846 hrskr,
Once again you amaze me with your inability to provide a reasoned argument. I did not ask for a philosophy or an ideology. I asked for an argument that is devoid of fallacy and sound bites. I did not advocate (in my last post). I asked for reasons.
Pragmatism is nothing more than a fancy way of saying Let’s try something. It is devoid of ethical principles. To be pragmatic in your personal life is fine because the only one that has to live with your choice is you.
Pragmatism is not the basis for our justice system. That is one of the most ignorant things you have ever wrote and there has been some stiff competition. Have you ever heard of Locke? Regardless, can you present a reasoned argument for government provided health care. Anecdotes are not arguments. Fallacies are not arguments. I am a rational human being. Just give me the reasons to believe that it is the right thing to do.
Tad
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1022 hrsWell Stated Tad
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1100 hrsTad,
you’ve been reading to many super hero comic books.
There really is no right or wrong answer to approaching this, or in the conclusion itself.
Anecdotal evidence is just as valid as Locke or Leno.
We are talking about what is, or not, considered part of the social contract that we all, more or less, believe we live under.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1111 hrsPretty much what we get from the right are anecdotes. And letting people go without healthcare when as a country we can afford to make sure people don’t go with out it, yeah Tad that’s pretty ethical.
Don’t know what passes for reasons around here here because I’ve been tossing these out a lot. But when it comes to comedy, you guys are rip and read.
There are tons on the internets demonstrating why our system is expensive and ineffective. I don’t have a lot of time right now but go to this one having to do with infant mortality—https://hopkinsnet.jhu.edu/servlet/page ?_pageid=1701&_dad=portal30p&_schema=PORTAL30P.
The countries that do better than us all have offer public healthcare. By the way, term “socialist” healthcare is strictly for people who simply want to turn blue and pass out rather than argue from a position other than affect.
Here is something that is particularly interesting from USA Today—http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231399/site/n ewsweek/?GT1=10056. Note that with the exception of California, the state doing the worst are red states.
As for Canada, where in the world do you get the figure that people are unhappy with their healthcare? Polls I see show 80% satisfaction. And everyone I talk to up there and I travel Canada a lot says that we are nuts for putting up with this system. There are a hell of a lot more people going broke here from medical bills than that one incident cited above in Canada. 50% of the bankruptcy in this country is from medical costs.
(Scratching my head) you can argue costs, you can argue quality—then how else do you determine which system is better? Maybe you prefer which has the better profit margin, or which has the best looking nurses.
Come back and still claim that I’m not throwing out facts at this point is pure BS and evading the discussion.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1123 hrskr, I never said you can argue quality, reread. The infant mortality study was widely crticised because the US includes infants that other countries would not attempt to save, hence we do not have apples to apples. The remainder of the study has rates of immunization and informal polls of how people feel. So? This isn’t an insurance problem, it’s a question of forcing people to immunize and whether or not that’s a good policy. Further, we do not have one health system, different states have different laws which affect these statistics. Combining them all into a national ranking is meaningless.
As far as ranking states, so what? The MSNBC map ranks states versus other states, not states versus nations. Note how the states with lower rankings are also states with higher immigration and higher illegal immigration. This has an impact.
Here’s one survey of canadians: (Warning:PDF File)http://www.who.int/patientsafety/news/2006_hcic.pdf
Here’s a survey of doctors: (Warning: PDF File)http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/topline_results _2006_IHPsurvey2.pdf?section=4056
They are not particularly surprising, Canadian doctors think their patients get poor access in many areas relative to the USA. American doctors think their patients have difficulty paying.
I don’t like polls because the margin for error is enormous, polls are not reality and the questions asked may not be relevant. But if we have to use them…
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1227 hrsPretty much what we get from the right are anecdotes. And letting people go without healthcare when as a country we can afford to make sure people don’t go with out it, yeah Tad that’s pretty ethical.
When is ‘food’ going to be a ‘right’? I mean as a country “we” can afford it???
When is free transportation going to be a right???? As a country “we” can afford it?
Just where do you draw the line KR?
If EVERYONE is entitled to “free” healthcare… If that is ethical… then why not free food? Surely nutrition supercedes healthcare on the socialist list of “entitlements”?
I won’t argue against the need for healthcare reform. I see how much my employer takes out of my paycheck every month for health insurance that I NEVER use, and I know that 2/3rds of the cost THEY pay. If I had to pay the whole thing myself I’d say no, and just take the cash instead.
And just curious… Should everyone share in the cost of this government provided healthcare equally in your opinion KR?
Or should some contribute more than others based on ability to pay?
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1238 hrsXxpilot, there have been “free food” programs of many kinds for years, private and governmental. Again, we’ve inherited hundreds of programs from previous generations who believed the government and charities could provide safety nets for the least fortunate among us, almost always without regard as to whether self-appointed moralists thought they “deserved it.”
That darn New Testament strikes again! If you found an unconscious bleeding man on the road, they thought we should have health care available without waiting for him to wake up to call home to get his proof of insurance.
Posted by John Foust on June 28, 2007 at 1334 hrsWhat the state figures tell us is those states that invest less in public healthcare tend to rank worse.
Pilot you are flying without a compass. Where does this plan say it is free? I mean if you can’t even discuss against the facts then don’t even post.
You know opposing this thing out of pure selfishness is really not being selfish. You are not sticking up for yourself, you are sticking it to yourself.
This is pointless. The reasoning on this thread is vapid and the demand is so high to dump the current greed healthcare system that it’s going to happen no matter how much you lie about the facts or rant IN CAPS at those in favor of it.
You matter how much you hit yourself in the head with the hammer it still somehow feels good to you. The rest of us know when to quit so your opinions, and that’s what they are, are irrelevant.
Sit back, relax, and enjoy the positive change that’s going to come to Wisconsin and that includes clearing out the state legislature of primative wingnuts. Bye.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1403 hrsI mean if you can’t even discuss against the facts then don’t even post.
The rest of us know when to quit so your opinions, and that’s what they are, are irrelevant.
Quite pompous there keyboard comando…
My question is valid. Sorry you don’t get to play god today and decide what is and isn’t relevant.
Of course nothing is free. I’m a business man. I am well aware of that. Many individuals in this country seem to think there isn’t a cost for these things.
I’m just curious as to your opinion (see I don’t mind discussing opinions without dismissing them)
But in your opinion (as gov. healthcare will have a cost) how do you think revenues to cover those costs should be generated? Tax everyone equally? Tax ‘the rich’ more than the poor?
Any pay per use? Or do those who use it alot pay the same as those who never use it?
You know opposing this thing out of pure selfishness is really not being selfish.
Masterful spin…
Allow me to clarify.
I believe in freedom. I also believe very strongly in charity…
I don’t believe in government charity. It lacks accountablity, it pales in effectiveness to private charity, and it leads to feelings of entitlement vs. motivation for self-sufficiency.
I know freedom is a tough concept to grasp for a pompous dh like yourself, but it IS possible to believe in freedom AND not be selfish.
Sit back, relax, and enjoy the positive change that’s going to come to Wisconsin and that includes clearing out the state legislature of primative wingnuts. Bye.
It is really sad. We had a state that was one of the most progressive in the country at getting able bodied people off of welfare. We now are opening the gates again. Relaxing standards for W-2… Entitlements to healthcare.... Sad day for Wisconsin.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1500 hrskr,
I never said that you didn’t present facts. I said you don’t present reasons. Please go back and look at #12. I gave you an example of an argument with reasons. Facts are what are used to back up reasons. You have given facts. Now show how those facts support your reasons to switch to a government run health care system. Just saying that the current system is bad does not say we should switch to a government system. Why not say that we should improve the current system? Why not say that hospitals and doctors can only make so much? Why must it be a government run system? Give reasons.
Tad
Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 1938 hrsAndrew Sullivan has a piece about how medical innovation has been stifled in Europe because of their socialized health care system: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/20 07/06/europes-drug-co.html
Posted by Matt on June 29, 2007 at 1140 hrs
Ol' Army
