1
   

Broken promises or Dictator

 
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 08:43 pm
@cruise95,
I just don't understand how government run insurance is good enough for veterans and the politicians that will ultimately decide its fate, but it is not good enough for the general population. Seems like a scam and racket to me. The only people that lose is the people. If the government run insurance sucks as much as Republicans and some Democrats claim, they would have went and found their own insurance--its not like they don't make enough money to do so.
cruise95
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 06:00 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;118396 wrote:
I just don't understand how government run insurance is good enough for veterans and the politicians that will ultimately decide its fate, but it is not good enough for the general population. Seems like a scam and racket to me. The only people that lose is the people. If the government run insurance sucks as much as Republicans and some Democrats claim, they would have went and found their own insurance--its not like they don't make enough money to do so.


From my understanding insurance for the veterans is not that good. I believe there was a bill introduced that would require all congress to have the same insurance that "We the people" had. That bill was voted down though - You see, the politicians would never have the same insurance as the rift-raft that they serve.
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:37 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;117292 wrote:
Inevitably, every politician unfortunate enough to get his or her wish will come to this predicament; no amount of promises typically made can be fulfilled once the true complexity and pain of the situation is known (I started a thread on this very issue here).

Yea probably - though that's not only not new, its typical of virtually every elected official: They can't keep all the promises they make - part and parcel to how elections work.


You assume they originally intended to keep their promises. That's a very great assumption. My view: they use statistics to determine what message is most likely to receive the most popular support, regardless of what it is. They then package it into a narrative that fits either the democratic brand or the republican brand. They then find funding from various corporate and establishment interests, who tell them what they really need to get done in office. Once in office, they do only and exactly what those special interests have told them to do. Ocasionally, this might accidentally correspond to what they promised in a campaign, so great. The rest of the time, they package it to make it seem - to the stupid - like it does anyway.

When a given politicans or party has lost too much creditibility to be electable, the special interest find a new one, and repeat the process.
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 11:48 am
@cruise95,
What a weird discussion. I gladly pay taxes for social security, it's also called social solidarity here, and I profit from it as well as every other belgian. What would happen if we didn't have social security? Have a life like in the States? Brrrr....
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 02:19 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;120170 wrote:
You assume they originally intended to keep their promises...


Yes, guilty as charged. I'd like to think they do; I have this idea that most embarking on a public service career actually believe they can make a difference - in the beginning at least. Perhaps not...

But whether that intent is there or not, I do maintain that the system we have in place (i.e., the popularity contest) one must become a liar (intended or no) in order to have any chance.

Thanks

---------- Post added 01-15-2010 at 02:28 PM ----------

Theaetetus;118396 wrote:
I just don't understand how government run insurance is good enough for veterans and the politicians that will ultimately decide its fate, but it is not good enough for the general population. Seems like a scam and racket to me. The only people that lose is the people. If the government run insurance sucks as much as Republicans and some Democrats claim, they would have went and found their own insurance--its not like they don't make enough money to do so.


Well, I've been under the veteran health care system for some time (retired for 9 years, 20 years active before that). The complaints that I might have are many of the same I have heard from folks living in other countries with nationalized health care - not surprising. But after having lived on both sides of the fence (and taking into account the vast differences in trying to compare what probably shouldn't be compared), I'd say that whether free-market or government-administered, both have severe shortfalls that anyone might find unacceptable.

All things considered, I think our current, for-profit system is horrendous; no heal-care anything should be for profit/for greed. And yes, our government could screw up fighting its way out of a wet paper bag; even so, doing this is - I believe - in our best interests. It could be eventually be fine-tuned and done in a matter that reflects U.S. priorities and differences. Not that it matters, recent polemics on this issue tell me, in a very loud and whining voice, that our country isn't ready for this yet.

... whether nationalized/government-administered health care is beneficial or not depends on who's doing the talking, and what kinds of systemic shortfalls are acceptable.

Thanks
0 Replies
 
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 03:28 pm
@Catchabula,
Catchabula;120171 wrote:
What a weird discussion. I gladly pay taxes for social security, it's also called social solidarity here, and I profit from it as well as every other belgian. What would happen if we didn't have social security? Have a life like in the States? Brrrr....


No one, in the U.S. at least, has profited from Social Security. You get out only what you put in plus a rate of interest that's supposed to be equal to the rate if inflation - so even in principle you aren't profiting, you're just saving. However, as the government's inflation numbers are hopelessly low all the time, you are in fact losing money. Social Security is nothing but a means of quietly borrowing from the people and paying them back with inflated dollars at a much later date.

...kinda like what we do with our foreign creditors...
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 05:02 pm
@BrightNoon,
Why is Social Security (in America) bankrupt? Why did the Soviets collapse?

Problems in the real world can't be solved by ideological dreams.

The American economy, however, can't be seperated from American culture. The free market is ruined because the people have lost their sound sense of what is real and true and good.

So Nationalized health care is not going to work because we can't afford to pay for it and the free market is broke. One thing I learned in my education is that sometimes there are no good options. We must learn to accept that we are complete failures now and suffer accordingly.

Thanks.

--Pyth
Catchabula
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 05:08 pm
@Pythagorean,
For those who are interested here's some information on the belgian system, to put things in perspective.

Social Security Benefits in Belgium - AngloINFO Brussels (Belgium)

I have the impression it works...
Klingsor phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2010 03:24 pm
@Catchabula,
And the health care system works in Germany as well.
If someone has serious medical problems and has to go into hospital, there would be only very few people who would be able to pay all the therapy from their own savings without getting into deep financial trouble.

So I am very happy to live in a country with a compulsory health insurence.
BrightNoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 09:30 pm
@Klingsor phil,
Sure, whenever there is a surplus, giving services away for free or at a discount is popular..nothing profound or instructive about that. When those surpluses vanish, then we see the true value people place on such services - i.e. we'll see how much taxation and/or inflation they are willing to tolerate to keep those services. Americans are being so tested now, as public finances collapse.

The primary reason that Europe can afford expensive welfare systems is that Europe does not have to provide - much - for its own defense, as it yet enjoys the protection of the American military. As our hegemony declines though, watch out. Europe is going to have to rearm or come under the thumb of a new master - Russia in all likelyhood.

If there is any lesson to be drawn from your mates across the Atlantic, it's that massive social and massive military spending cannot coexist for long, and lead to bankruptcy.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 09:49 pm
@cruise95,
cruise95;117247 wrote:
It is interesting how "Universal Healthcare" is being framed...or will be. If it is mandated that everyone pay for healthcare, then an argument can be made that our government is forcing us to buy something.
Our government forced us to buy muskets in the 1790s and forced us to buy highways in the 1950s.

cruise95;117247 wrote:
Assuming that we call it what it really is (a tax) then President Obama will have broken his promise that only those making more than $250,000 will be taxed.
Doesn't really matter what you call it -- the fact of the matter is that 31 million more people will be insured, and that's a hell of a lot LESS free care that's causing my hospital to hemorrhage money and causing the smaller hospitals in the area to layoff staff, contract services, and in some cases close altogether.

cruise95;117247 wrote:
What should the president do? Break his promise and call it a tax or mandate that everyone must purchase a product? Its a lose-lose situation
How about he does what he think is right and not worry about the words you choose to characterize it?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 10:21 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;120943 wrote:
Our government forced us to buy muskets in the 1790s and forced us to buy highways in the 1950s.


The thing is, the heath care costs are so expensive to begin with because of government imposing restrictions on how it functions. Government caused the problem and they are trying to sell you the idea that it has a fix but the fix is just to make insurance companies more money. It is the quack doctor who sells you the cure for the disease that he created.

Aedes;120943 wrote:

Doesn't really matter what you call it -- the fact of the matter is that 31 million more people will be insured, and that's a hell of a lot LESS free care that's causing my hospital to hemorrhage money and causing the smaller hospitals in the area to layoff staff, contract services, and in some cases close altogether.


Quote me on this, that hemorrhage that you say won't happen if this plan goes through, will in fact happen anyways. Why? Because a majority of doctors will not accept price controls which will ultimately have to be set for this whole thing to work. Just like medicare doesn't work because some doctors refuse to accept it.

Aedes;120943 wrote:

How about he does what he think is right and not worry about the words you choose to characterize it?


The only thing Obama is concerned about is keeping the union, sorry I mean campaign funders happy. He doesn't care about the American people, he just wants to make sure big corporations and banks get the hard earned money they deserve.

He thinks by taxing banks will prevent them from giving out bonuses. Seriously what? And he specifically told them not to pass those costs onto their customers. Now he is a comedian.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 10:51 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;120944 wrote:
The thing is, the heath care costs are so expensive to begin with because of government imposing restrictions on how it functions.
Man, that can't be further from the truth. Every other country in the developed world has FAR more government involvement and restrictions than the United States, virtually all have universal centralized health care, and the United States had by far the most expensive health care per capita in the entire world. It's not even close. So explain that -- we have the LEAST involved government into health care in the entire developed world, but the MOST expensive health care. How does that fit your thesis?

Krumple;120944 wrote:
Quote me on this, that hemorrhage that you say won't happen if this plan goes through, will in fact happen anyways. Why? Because a majority of doctors will not accept price controls which will ultimately have to be set for this whole thing to work. Just like medicare doesn't work because some doctors refuse to accept it.
I love Medicare, as do most of us who are based in hospitals. If every uninsured patient I take care of could just wait until 65 to get sick, my hospital would be doing a lot better.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:04 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;120951 wrote:
Man, that can't be further from the truth. Every other country in the developed world has FAR more government involvement and restrictions than the United States, virtually all have universal centralized health care, and the United States had by far the most expensive health care per capita in the entire world. It's not even close. So explain that -- we have the LEAST involved government into health care in the entire developed world, but the MOST expensive health care. How does that fit your thesis?


I am saying that to become a doctor, the requirements are set too high which causes fewer people to become doctors. Also to be a simple technician on medical equipment requires lots of training and to be certified which drives up the cost of maintenance or servicing of that equipment. On top of that, the person using the equipment also needs to be certified, so on and so forth. Each step of the process the government is closing the door on who can do what and when or where which drives up costs. Other countries don't have these restrictions in all the same cases as the US.

You shouldn't have to be required to have a medical degree in my opinion to be a doctor. We should have never let the government regulate it. We should have allowed the free market to settle the issues themselves.

Doctors can't be sued, they have massive protection from being prosecuted since they are only "practicing medicine". This also drives up cost for having X amount of doctors per facility, not to pay for malpractice insurance but instead to keep the people who would sue quiet.

What I am saying is that our current doctors have the wrong incentive and protection that otherwise would drive out the inefficiencies of the system. But our government has stepped in and it creates not only additional inefficiencies but grossly bloats the ones that would be there without it's interference.

You don't need doctors to be regulated. There is a much easier and more simplistic way to do it, but people have been sold on the idea that doctors must be regulated. It's a fallacy caused by the lack of education or misinformation.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:19 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;120955 wrote:
I am saying that to become a doctor, the requirements are set too high which causes fewer people to become doctors.
I can tell you exactly what the requirements are to become a doctor in the United States, and they are EASIER than in Europe. In most European countries to become a subspecialist takes a lot longer than in the United States, first of all, and in general doctors earn far less in Europe than in the United States. The United States also has a lot more medical schools.

In other words, the United States has one of the most permissive environments in the developed world to enter the field of medicine. The primary obstacle is the cost of medical education, and with high earning potential and with availability of loans that's seldom a major obstacle.

Krumple;120955 wrote:
Also to be a simple technician on medical equipment requires lots of training and to be certified which drives up the cost of maintenance or servicing of that equipment.
They have MRIs and PET scanners and autoclaves and computers and robot surgery in Europe, Australia, and Japan too.

Krumple;120955 wrote:
Other countries don't have these restrictions in all the same cases as the US.
It's more restrictive in just about every other country.

Krumple;120955 wrote:
You shouldn't have to be required to have a medical degree in my opinion to be a doctor.
A medical degree isn't even close to enough to become a doctor. Getting an MD just makes you ready to be an intern. Trust me, I did seven years of postgraduate medical training after medical school, I've attained three specialty board certifications (most people only get one), and I've been a medical school faculty member for two years, and it's still not enough to feel like I have command of all the things I need to do.

Krumple;120955 wrote:
Doctors can't be sued, they have massive protection from being prosecuted since they are only "practicing medicine".
That part I agree with, though the major cost of medical liability is that doctors in the US order unnecessary tests for CYA purposes.

Krumple;120955 wrote:
What I am saying is that our current doctors have the wrong incentive and protection that otherwise would drive out the inefficiencies of the system. But our government has stepped in and it creates not only additional inefficiencies but grossly bloats the ones that would be there without it's interference.
With all due respect, Krumple, (moreso today because we see eye to eye in a different thread :flowers:), I've been in the field of medicine for a very long time and I am having a great deal of difficulty meshing your points with reality. I've been licensed in CT, MA, and NC, I've been affiliated with three different medical schools and god at least 20 or 30 hospitals, and I know a lot of hospital administrators. It's like you're not even talking about the system I work in.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 07:24 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon;120940 wrote:
The primary reason that Europe can afford expensive welfare systems is that Europe does not have to provide - much - for its own defense, as it yet enjoys the protection of the American military. As our hegemony declines though, watch out.


Not only that; Europe can afford expensive welfare systems because the US subsidizes it in many unintentional ways.
Take the US free market health care system for example. Health care advancements over the last 50 year came almost entirely from the US. Where the inventors and distributors can expect a profit. As opposed to Europe, where there is no incentive for invention, any new technology really is more a pain in the ass to some government bureaucrat.
Then that new advancement is available in the US, at first at a high prices, which in part explains why the US health care system is so expensive. And then those advancements are sold to Europe at a lower price.
But Europe's socialized health care systems wouldn't have those advancements without the US free market health care system being there to subsidize them. And more importantly, if the US tried to copy this supposed "success" of the European socialized health care systems, it wouldn't work as then there's nobody to subsidize the US, plus the European systems wouldn't work any more either.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/17/2024 at 04:39:15