If there are public schools, why can't there be public health care?

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....SpartanMSU

Hmmm...kind of like a Ponzi scheme? Only it's legal if the government does it!

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But that problem is unfounded, the CBO said prior to the gutting of the public option that it has no competitive advantage.

-Sun_Tzu-

:| The CBO being part of the same government that would be at liberty to rewrite the rules of competition...

All you have to do is look around your neighborhood and you would see that public and private entities operate fine with one another. There are public schools and there are private schools, there are public parks and there are private parks, there is public transportation such as buses and their is private transportation such as taxis, there are public hospitals and there are private hospitals, there are public radio stations and there are private radio stations, there are public t.v. stations and there are private t.v. stations - it is not outlandish to suggest that public and private entities can exist alongside one another.

Schools- The vast majority being religiously based, at least in the United States, thus ineligible to be integrated into the public school system

Parks- Never seen a private park, so can't judge.

Hospitals- Same with parks

Transport- I'll concede to this one.

Radio- Because NPR is so popular...

TV- Same as radio...

OK, fine, I'm "making stuff up." I'll admit that. The problem with that, however, is that there are already examples of the government effectively taking control of businesses and entrenching themselves to the point where, despite the cost, they cannot be rooted out. The postal service, for instance, or public education.

The government makes the laws, thus can control the playing field to an extent that not even the most far-reaching corporation can muster. Unless, of course, you are telling me that being the only competitor that can directly influence and change the rules of the game doesn't give you a huge advantage to begin with, which, of course, is a complete farce.

[QUOTE="fillini"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Some evidence that backs up that claim would be nice. Again, the public option operates exactly as a private insurer would; it is open to the individual market and employers - those who cannot afford insurance on their own would receive subsidies when purchasing either a private or public insurer. Using your logic, a private option makes no sense without government subsidies.

Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." Treflis

I have been on four mission trips to Mexico, building "homes" for families. I qouted homes because they were 15' by 20" shacks, for a family of 7. The poorest person in America is by far better off then the poor in Mexico, let alone in places like Somalia or the Ivory Coast.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Good point. Health care is certainly a right. Same as clothing, food, housing, the need for cars and other such transportation, and also the need for a mate. These things are essential for survival, happiness, and the continuation of one's genes. I think they should all be socialized. Especially dating. Think about. Lots of losers here on GS can't get a girlfriend. Wealthy people have an easier time. Why should having a mate be the sole province of the wealthy? That's BS. Everyone has the right to pass on their genes. So now, you can havea government appointed girlfriend. Better yet, if you have trouble affording a date, you can have the state pay for your night out. Anybody that would object is just greedy. These things should be basic human rights and should be provided free of cost by any caring society.

The fact that you'd even compare dating to health care is silly. You can obviously survive without cars or dating. But medicine is essential if you're sick.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="fillini"]If the idea is to create competition then open up the market. Allow interstate competetion from Health insurance companies. I used to sell Health insurance we had maybe 3 to choose from. Most of our policies were written, went to the same two companies. Our clients were like "Thats all the choices i have?" pretty much yes. Health insurance should be just as competively qouted as life insurance, there is no excuse.

fillini

I'm not saying that the insurance companies are corrupt, it's just that there is really no incentive for health insurance companies to care for the health of their customers on their own; in fact there is a disincentive - any care they pay for is a financial loss to them. That's why they deny as many as they can while only accepting the healthy, because the healthy cost less to take care of. With a public option there is a different sort of competition going on; all of a sudden there is an insurer that's not interested in making a profit and is there primarily to care for its customers and is a viable alternative to private insurance. That provides an incentive for the private insurers to become serious about the care that their customers receive, because the only other option would be going out of business, and that is the ultimate disincentive.

Charity begins at home maybe if the govt would quit sending milllions of cash to other countries to help their poor and needy they could take care of their own needy here at home.

[QUOTE="fillini"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But the end result of that wouldn't lead to more people being insured. It wouldn't be healthy (pun intended) compettition - it would basically be the insurance companies competing against each other in order to maximize profits, seeing who can do the best at denying coverage to those who need it.

-Sun_Tzu-

I'm not saying that the insurance companies are corrupt, it's just that there is really no incentive for health insurance companies to care for the health of their customers on their own; in fact there is a disincentive - any care they pay for is a financial loss to them. That's why they deny as many as they can while only accepting the healthy, because the healthy cost less to take care of. With a public option there is a different sort of competition going on; all of a sudden there is an insurer that's not interested in making a profit and is there primarily to care for its customers and is a viable alternative to private insurance. That provides an incentive for the private insurers to become serious about the care that their customers receive, because the only other option would be going out of business, and that is the ultimate disincentive.

The public option isn't about MONEY, its about control.

Free markets do make it better, I live in Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic is in Rochester, MN. Do you know how many denigtaries and head of state come HERE, the big bad capitalist run health care, system? tons. I have 4 canadian friends, all 4 prefer the U.S. system to the Canadian. Two of those friend's dads may not be alive if they didn't pay out of pocket for their care in the states. I had a client from Japan, had cancer, Japan was going to delay his treatment/surgery. He called around in the states negotiated with the U.S. hospitals and paid cash for his treatment. Did you get it he flew from Japan's FREE system to come to Amercia's capitalistic run system. He didn't go to France, Canada, Spain or Britain.

So the question to you is: What differentiates the U.S. system from all the other that denigtaries/heads of state and my client, a missionary by the way, would want to come to the U.S. rather than utilize their own free government run systems?

Considering the state of American public schools as opposed to private schools, I think comparing education to healthcare serves as an argument for the other side.fidosim

[QUOTE="Kid-Icarus-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Even if it meant all the naysayer's worst nightmares coming true: the death panels, the rationing of health care, and the long lines to get a life-saving operation? Isn't it more immoral to provide healthcare but deny it to someone for so long that they eventually die because of the government's negligence?

SpartanMSU

You're right, must be why 70% believe the UK's healthcare system needs drastic reform or needs to be completely changed...

Edit: Obviously you can't take this as a scientific poll of opinion, but I think these comments from a recent debate at the 'Have Your Say' section of the BBC website are a pretty good reflection of public opinion in my experience 'Do You Support the NHS?'.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="fillini"]Your logic doesn't make sense, "competing against each other in order to maximize profits", yeah its called capitalism. The big bad corporation is going to get you. If there was 10 companies to choose from, your logic would suggest all 10 would be corrupt. Did you really think the people who has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Cash for Clunkers etc. is going to be able to run a national bureaucracy over seeing health care? The Democrats and socialists don't want money they want power and control. "if we can just control this part of the country, we can run it better and it would be better for everyone." blah blah blah. More people being insured, great, they won't get the care they need, but by God they'll be assured.

fillini

I'm not saying that the insurance companies are corrupt, it's just that there is really no incentive for health insurance companies to care for the health of their customers on their own; in fact there is a disincentive - any care they pay for is a financial loss to them. That's why they deny as many as they can while only accepting the healthy, because the healthy cost less to take care of. With a public option there is a different sort of competition going on; all of a sudden there is an insurer that's not interested in making a profit and is there primarily to care for its customers and is a viable alternative to private insurance. That provides an incentive for the private insurers to become serious about the care that their customers receive, because the only other option would be going out of business, and that is the ultimate disincentive.

The public option isn't about MONEY, its about control.

Free markets do make it better, I live in Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic is in Rochester, MN. Do you know how many denigtaries and head of state come HERE, the big bad capitalist run health care, system? tons. I have 4 canadian friends, all 4 prefer the U.S. system to the Canadian. Two of those friend's dads may not be alive if they didn't pay out of pocket for their care in the states. I had a client from Japan, had cancer, Japan was going to delay his treatment/surgery. He called around in the states negotiated with the U.S. hospitals and paid cash for his treatment. Did you get it he flew from Japan's FREE system to come to Amercia's capitalistic run system. He didn't go to France, Canada, Spain or Britain.

So the question to you is: What differentiates the U.S. system from all the other that denigtaries/heads of state and my client, a missionary by the way, would want to come to the U.S. rather than utilize their own free government run systems?

I don't see how you can honestly say the public option is about control when private insurers ration care and restrict choice much more than medicare does. The private insurers control their customers much more than medicare beneficiaries are controlled. You bring up the Mayo Clinic, first of all it's a non-profit institution and I said nothing bad about non-profits, and I'm not advocating for the government to adopt a system similar to the NHS, in fact I'm against such a system. Second of all I was refering mainly to insurance companies. And you don't even address the subtance in my post about the insurance companies, you just talk about how rich people and your friends like U.S. health care.

Now let's back away from anecdotes and look at facts. The U.S. spends the most on the health care, both as a % of GDP and per capita, but we don't have the best health statistics, in fact they are quite mediocre in some cases. Medical bills are one of the main causes of bankruptcy in the U.S., medical bankuptcies are almost not heard of in any other developed country. Tens of thousands of people die every year in the U.S. because they are either uninsured or underinsured. But rich people use our medical facilities, so that proves that the free market is a success. Lets ignore all the people who go to that evil communistic Canada for health care because they can't afford it in the U.S....in fact Americans spend one billion dollars annually on prescription drugs from Canada, but at least the rich use our health care.

The free market doesn't work with health care in theory, because health care is a service that requires insurance for the vast majority of people due to how expensive it is, but the insurance companies in the U.S. do not properly administer care due to reasons previously stated, and there is not one example of a successfull health care system that works well that is based on free market principles. How about you tell me how I am wrong about my critique of the insurance industry and explain to me in depth how a free market health care system would benefit this country.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

Yes, some will not be able to afford insurance without subsidies, but not everyone, like you suggested. Besides, you are arguing against subsidized insurance, not a public option.-Sun_Tzu-

A public option makes no sense without government subsidies. Not even the middles class will be able to afford public insurrance without it.

Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.

I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." Treflis

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

A public option makes no sense without government subsidies. Not even the middles class will be able to afford public insurrance without it.

Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.

I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." Treflis

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." psychobrew

[QUOTE="Treflis"]I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." sonicare

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Some evidence that backs up that claim would be nice. Again, the public option operates exactly as a private insurer would; it is open to the individual market and employers - those who cannot afford insurance on their own would receive subsidies when purchasing either a private or public insurer. Using your logic, a private option makes no sense without government subsidies.

Either way, if there is a public option or if there is not one, the government is going to subsidize those who cannot afford it, so you are not even arguing against a public option, just subsidized insurance.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yeah, there are tons of people buying unsubsidised insurance policies. I've already shown you the amount of money it would cost to buy unsubsidized insurance -- the uninsured would have insurance if it were affordable. The problem is it's not affordable for anyone who needs itunless it's subsidised.

Since when has a public anything reduced costs? A public option ismore likely to becontrolled by corruption, neglected, eventually fall in to a chaotic state that helps no one, and become a public burden. It would be better to regulate the industry a little more.

Obviously, some health reform is needed. But there is no quick fix for the american health care system. It can not be done fast or simply.Most countries with nationalized health care services started their systems years ago. Back then, it was easier to implement. The health infrastructure was much smaller and more convenient to nationalize. Had the US adopted a nationalized service back in the 40's, it would likely be a fine system today. But for whatever reason, they have did not have the fortune to do so at that time.

Now, the system is enormous. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment, facilities, practices, staff, etc. How do you reform that? How do you cut costs? In most national health services, the government owns all the medical resources and all the medical staff are employees of the state. How would we go about transforming are system to that? Do we nationalize everything -Say, sorry people, you may own or have invested in this equipment, but we the government are just going to take it. No compensation. Considering the health industry has been a staple during the recession, is it wise to obliterate it like that? Probably not. Besides, is it just for the government just to take private citizens property without compensation? Probably not.

Other ideas are to have a public option, kind of like medicare but available to everyone. The medical resources and staff are still private, but the payer(insurance) is now public. That's a possibility, but how would you do that? How could you cut costs without running all the privately owned places out of business? Most doctor groups and hospitals have large overheads. If the government starts a health service and says we'll cut costs by paying x % less than what the current payers do, how would any of those groups survive? Certain costs are fixed. They won't drop if you cut compensation. So would these groups be able to make it with less revenue? For example - say you have some doctor group who operates with a 60% overhead - meaning that 60 cents to every dollar they bring in goes to paying costs. You can say, we'll pay you 20% less then what we did before to control medical spending. Sounds fair. But the doctor group doesn't make 20% less salary. They make 50% less because their overhead stays the same but their revenues have now dropped. Some hospitals and doctor groups run on very thin lines. You'd end up driving many of them out of business and then having less available providers of care.

I'm not sure of what the answer is, but it's going to be very difficult and probably a slow process to implement. It may be a smart decision to start implementing regulation today that will have effects at reshaping the direction the health industry is going in this country so that a public option or national service may be more viable in the future.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The difference is public schools are free to everyone. The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Treflis"]I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." STAR_Admiral

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="Treflis"]I watched some TV today that showed basically families giving food and clothes to the poor through means of a soup kitchen and such. Then saying that nothing gives a greater joy then to help those that needs it. But then I see a quote like this : The public health care is only public to the poor while the non-poor have to still pay for their own pluss the poors' care. and I think, Well then either those families in that show are exeptionally kind, the Majority or America don't give a damn about their fellow citizens or America as a whole is one large Hypocrit when it comes to helping the poor. "We'll feed and give you clothes but we'll be damned if we give you access to the medical aid that you need." STAR_Admiral

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] A public option isn't going to have private companies subsidising it like private options do. People don't have insurance now unless it's subsidised by their employers. Why do you think there are so many uninsured? If it were afordable, it wouldn'tbe a problem and it wouldn't need subsidising. Again, a public option makes no sense without public subsidisation, and that publuic subsidisation will eventually be paid for by the middle class -- you can bank on it. The middles class can't afford a $13,000 per year policy on their own. Do the math. Every public policy taken out will need to be subsidized by the governments (remember, private policies are already subsidised by employers), and if the amount of subsidization doesn't make the premiums attractive enough nobody is going to be interested in it. Your typical $13,000 policy will cost $1083 per month (that's a mortgage payment for some people, and the middle class people I know can not afford two mortgages). That number needs to be brought down to the $200 area. The rest is going to be subsidised out of our pockets.psychobrew

Yeah, there are tons of people buying unsubsidised insurance policies. I've already shown you the amount of money it would cost to buy unsubsidized insurance -- the uninsured would have insurance if it were affordable. The problem is it's not affordable for anyone who needs itunless it's subsidised.

Since when has a public anything reduced costs? A public option ismore likely to becontrolled by corruption, neglected, eventually fall in to a chaotic state that helps no one, and become a public burden. It would be better to regulate the industry a little more.

[QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] It's more like the majority of Americans can't afford to pay someone else's bills. We're not talking about a few dollars here. For those that think like you, I say pay it yourselves -- money doesn't grow on trees for everyone. Giving away used clothing is completely different.psychobrew

So the question to you is: What differentiates the U.S. system from all the other that denigtaries/heads of state and my client, a missionary by the way, would want to come to the U.S. rather than utilize their own free government run systems?

fillini

Nothing differentiates the US system in that way. The US has some of the very best facilities in the world. But then again, so do the Swiss. Or even the U of A heart facility in good old Edmonton, AB Canada. Or Sick Kids in Toronto, ON, Canada. The fact is that the Mayo clinic is not indicative of the average clinic in the US. People go there because it is one of the bestand because you can buy your way to the front of the line. Where the 2% elite of society go is not very useful in discussing the pros and cons of any system for the other 98% of people.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="STAR_Admiral"] When in comes to paying for other's bills, you must realize how taxes work. They always flow from rich to poor. Anytime someone pays someone else's medical bill it is somewhere better off paying someone who is worse off. So if your in debt, or low/middle class. You need not worry, the rich will cover your bill. Some of your taxes will flow down to the poor. But more will flow to you then you dish out. The American's paying other's bills will always be those who can easily afford it. Thats why i dont get all these low/middle class people protesting at town halls. Do they not realize it will be people making over $350 000 paying the bill, while they remain untouchedsonicare