Sicko...

[Cruentus]

I would suggest that it is not 'government' involvement, but rather two other parties involvment that causes the cost crisis.

Insurance Companies
Pharmaceutical Companies

I believe that involvement by the government would drastically reduce costs ... see medicare, it is an incredibly efficient system of delivering health care.

I work in an insurance related field (auto insurance, not health insurance), and this is my opinion and experience from personal observation.

I would have to agree with this. The simple fact, as it seems to me, is that a paying system is not working. It has gotten pretty ridicules in our country, at this point. However, we look at countries with less money then we have, and they can make a universal system work. So, this isn't a speculative idea where we can make predictions like "if we move to a universal system, people will go broke from taxes" or "if we do that, we will be further enslaved by our government," and so forth, because that hasn't been the end result in other countries. This is being done, and it seems to be working.

Further, we do this in the military. The military is like one huge universal HC system. So I know that we could make this work on a larger scale.

I am all for a limited Government, and I definitaly want the power to be in the hands of the people. I am very libritarian and an individualist. But, individualism only goes so far, and that is why we have governments and not an anarchical system. I believe that Governments serve 2 very related purposes: to keep us safe and to keep us free. I think that "free-market" ideals are out the window when it comes to safety or protecting our rights and freedoms. I wouldn't, for example, want healthy competition in the market place with the fire dept. or police dept. where it is all privatized and I pay one group or another, or none at all nad I don't get service. That is ridicules, and we know it, so we have government run fire and police dept. because these are safety issues. Well, I think that healthcare is a safety issue as well, and that it shouldn't be limited to only those who can afford it. Add that to the fact that it is working in other countries, and that people in other countries pay far less per person (including taxes to run the system) then we do in our current system, that seals the deal for me.

Plus, keep in mind that you need healthy competition for a free market system to work. In our system, we do not have this, and big pharma and insurance has run a monopoly on our healthcare system, and have driven the prices far higher rather then lower.

I do think that we need to do a system that would be uniquely ours, and that would take into consideration research and development. But I think that it should be nationalized to at least some degree. I think that we have the wealth and the creativity to do this in a better way then it is being done even in Europe.

 

[newGuy12]

But, individualism only goes so far, and that is why we have governments and not an anarchical system. I believe that Governments serve 2 very related purposes: to keep us safe and to keep us free. I think that "free-market" ideals are out the window when it comes to safety or protecting our rights and freedoms.

If I may try to make a point...

See, this is where the "free market" talk fails. To have a truly free market, you would have no FDA. You would have no patents on any medicine. A student at Stanford, say, could get some Zoloft, analyze the compound, synthesize it, and then replicate it in any laboratory he could come by. He could then sell it, without a license, at whatever price the market would bear.

Furthermore, doctors would not be licensed, the buyer would beware.

Sometimes it tires me to hear so much about "free markets" when we really have nothing of the kind at all.

 

[Yeti]

It seems I've hit a hot button with you michaeledward...not my intent. I am not sure how long you have been a resident of NH, but if it has been longer than 10 years, you should know well what happened to the health care industry in the state and under who's administration. That should answer at least a portion of the questions you asked.

I'm not exactly sure why you are trying so hard to discredit me as my intent was not to anger you. I don't think your questions alone make me feel that way, but the aggression with which you asked them. However, I will try to answer at least some of your questions.

I do not recall the exact companies that left - I'm sorry, it has been too long, and quite honestly, I never listed them all - just looked at the numbers. Honestly though, I really do not know what purpose that would serve since I did not quote exact numbers of companies that started and left. I only spoke in generalities. I do know that Anthem (Blue Cross) and I think Celtic were two of the companies that remained. I believe they are both still in NH today. Do I have quotes from those firms that left?...of course not - I don't really keep such records nor do I think do you. I did not have direct dealing with these firms, only remember reading about the industry. As for the rankings, I believe they were obtained by the HCIA but I may be mistaken.

My post was vague - perhaps too vague - on purpose as I am speaking from memory from many years ago. I have not followed the affairs in the state since I moved out of it several years ago. Perhaps I should have saved comment only for those areas of which I still have direct knowledge.

 

[Makalakumu]

Other countries are not the US. Other countries have publically funded elections. They control the amount of lobbying that goes on. They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments. In the US, we do nothing of the sort. In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want. It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?

In theory, I agree that we need to have a system in place that would take care of everybody fairly. As it stands now, I think that would impossible though. There are too many fundamental systematic problems with the way that corporations influence and shape policy for their own interests that I think it would be a nightmare for the common person.

Lets face it people, from our financial system, to our environmental policy, to health care, to transportation and infractructure, our government has made policies that favor the special interests and serve benefit a select group of corporations. The gains we made in the past are being rolled back and new policies are being set in place that basically take the money we pay in taxes and place it directly into the hands of the special interests.

Until this trend is reversed, I don't think we can even address this issue. Expanding government in times like this is like expanding cancer throughout an organism.

We need massive reform everywhere. Not just in health care.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems I've hit a hot button with you michaeledward...not my intent. I am not sure how long you have been a resident of NH, but if it has been longer than 10 years, you should know well what happened to the health care industry in the state and under who's administration. That should answer at least a portion of the questions you asked.

I'm not exactly sure why you are trying so hard to discredit me as my intent was not to anger you. I don't think your questions alone make me feel that way, but the aggression with which you asked them. However, I will try to answer at least some of your questions.

I do not recall the exact companies that left - I'm sorry, it has been too long, and quite honestly, I never listed them all - just looked at the numbers. Honestly though, I really do not know what purpose that would serve since I did not quote exact numbers of companies that started and left. I only spoke in generalities. I do know that Anthem (Blue Cross) and I think Celtic were two of the companies that remained. I believe they are both still in NH today. Do I have quotes from those firms that left?...of course not - I don't really keep such records nor do I think do you. I did not have direct dealing with these firms, only remember reading about the industry. As for the rankings, I believe they were obtained by the HCIA but I may be mistaken.

My post was vague - perhaps too vague - on purpose as I am speaking from memory from many years ago. I have not followed the affairs in the state since I moved out of it several years ago. Perhaps I should have saved comment only for those areas of which I still have direct knowledge.

Yeti, from your post, it was unclear if you were referring to New Hampshire, or somewhere else.

I make no attempt to discredit you. And you did not anger me. You did, however, put forth an argument that was very poorly supported.

You stated in your first post, you were speaking only of 'generalities', but were quite specific about those 'generalities' have been caused by a 'governor'.

In this post, you offer a bit of support for your argument that Health Care Companies consolidated. But, that has been going on completely independently from who was governor, and it has been going on in far more places than just New Hampshire.

The same types of consoldations have been taking place in banking, do we ascribe those consolidations and business acquisitions to the governor? Bank of New Hampshire was purchased by a Canadian company. But, we don't hear that acquisition being blamed on 'government'. Probably because no one is worried about 'socialized banking'.

Yeti, I welcome well made arguments from all points of view. I mean no attack on you. But, if you are going to make an argument that government invovlement is bad for healthcare, I am going to ask you, or anyone, to support their argument credibly.

 

[Cruentus]

If I may try to make a point...

See, this is where the "free market" talk fails. To have a truly free market, you would have no FDA. You would have no patents on any medicine. A student at Stanford, say, could get some Zoloft, analyze the compound, synthesize it, and then replicate it in any laboratory he could come by. He could then sell it, without a license, at whatever price the market would bear.

Furthermore, doctors would not be licensed, the buyer would beware.

Sometimes it tires me to hear so much about "free markets" when we really have nothing of the kind at all.

Those are really good points, man. I think that the free market ideal is a good one, but certain elements have to be in place for it to work (like fair competition); and those elements are not in place within our healthcare system.

 

[Cruentus]

Other countries are not the US. Other countries have publically funded elections. They control the amount of lobbying that goes on. They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments. In the US, we do nothing of the sort. In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want. It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?

...

We need massive reform everywhere. Not just in health care.

Wow. Well, you make a valid point that I haven't yet thought of.

I can't disagree that our real problems seem to stem from an overrunning of corporate interest in our government. It never occured to me that these interests might infect a nationalized plan. On the one hand, we could make a nationalized plan that far superceedes what we have no; on the other hand, if it is done wrongly and for the purpose of filtering our tax money into coffers, it could make what we have now seem like glory days. It's like, we could have the ability to make a good idea better, or take a good idea and screw it all up.

So, maybe you are right. Maybe we need to first remove the stranglehold that lobbiest and campaign finance has on our government 1st, before we can trust that a nationalized plan would actually serve the people rather then big government and corporate interests.

I don't know the answers, and I certainly need to do more of my own research and hear some other opinions. But I have to say that you make a great point here that I can't argue with at the moment.

I do know, though that we are in what I would consider a crisis at this point, and something really needs to be done about this soon. Too many hard working people suffer and are bankrupted and screwed over by our current system as it is, not to mention the generalized serfdom that occurs for almost everyone regarding HC.

Side Note: In relationship to a nationalized plan gone wrong, the blurbs I have heard from Hilary Clinton scare the crap out of me. When I heard her say somethng along the lines of "people won't be able to get employed unless they can show proof of health insurance, just like buying a car" I stopped what I was doing in horror and was like WTF!? I don't know the details of her plan, but what I have heard her talk about in principle is frightening as hell.

 

[Cruentus]

Here is Hillary's plan:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx

The part that I don't like is that it appears that people will be forced to pay "low cost premiums," whatever that means. This seems to be like an invitation to further burden us with costs rather then help reduce our costs. Plus, I don't clearly see how the plan will keep cost of care down. It could potentially be an invitation to fliter more of our money into coffers, and lead to imprisoning us with a manditory system of coverage.

The only good thing is that I do see how the plan could prevent unfair discrimination.

 

[Cruentus]

An article with some links to sites that present both sides:

http://jmchar.people.wm.edu/Kin493/socmed.html

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As I stated before, I believe that our health care "system" needs to be changed. I believe that a truly free market system would accomplish that.

But for all the talk of a federally run governmental health care system has anyone asked one fundamental question as it relates to the U.S.: Where in the United States Constitution, from which all power of the federal government arises, does it give the power to the Feds to do so?

I have read the Constitution, and I don't believe such a health care system is specifically enumerated for the Feds, as is required by the 10th Amendment.

And I know that some will say that the Feds are into a lot of sectors not listed in the Constitution. That's not what I'm interested in hearing. I want to know where the Feds believe they can derive this power.

 

[Sorros]

Other countries are not the US. Other countries have publically funded elections. They control the amount of lobbying that goes on. They limit the amount of corporate interest in their governments. In the US, we do nothing of the sort. In fact, our politicians BEG for money from these guys and they get what they want...despite what the people want. It's happened time and time again, why can we expect it to be any different with a Universal Health Care system?

In theory, I agree that we need to have a system in place that would take care of everybody fairly. As it stands now, I think that would impossible though. There are too many fundamental systematic problems with the way that corporations influence and shape policy for their own interests that I think it would be a nightmare for the common person.

Lets face it people, from our financial system, to our environmental policy, to health care, to transportation and infractructure, our government has made policies that favor the special interests and serve benefit a select group of corporations. The gains we made in the past are being rolled back and new policies are being set in place that basically take the money we pay in taxes and place it directly into the hands of the special interests.

Until this trend is reversed, I don't think we can even address this issue. Expanding government in times like this is like expanding cancer throughout an organism.

We need massive reform everywhere. Not just in health care.

I'm not sure what other countrys your talking about. I have lived over seas three times and, the amount of graft and corruption is not only prevelent but accepted by the public to a certain exstent.
In most of the G8 countrys supposively modern, the good old boy system is alive and well. The third world countries are ripe with corruption, its all who you know. what family you belong to. I heard it said say in Mexico, 65 families controle 90% of the wealth.

 

[Makalakumu]

Some of this may be true, but I think that we probably could agree that in the scope of monetary amounts, the US probably is number one. I would wager dollars to doughnuts that we spend more on lobbying and PACs then any other country.

 

[Sorros]

I've never seen any of his movies, so I cannot comment on them, but, I would like to comment on him, the man. I once heard a soundbite where Moore outright owned some media guy who was interviewing him.

The media guy somehow got smart with Moore. Moore then outright told him, "Look, when my first movie came out, all of you people dismissed it as being foolish. I had three points to the movie, 1) That there would be no weapons of mass destruction found, 2) that there would be big problems with medical care for the soldiers. 3) that we would be bogged down in a quagmire. So, what do we have?

No weapons of mass destruction.
Congressional hearings over Walter Reed hospital.
No realistic end in sight.


Then, haha, Moore told the guy, "So why don't you first apologize for calling me foolish over the first movie before we speak about this one, or better yet, let's just cut to a commercial right now so that we can see what pharmaceutical companies are sponsoring this show."


So, in my mind, this guy Michael Moore knows how to go toe-to-toe with these media pundits and do what we call around here a knock-out-punch!

Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock. More than half of farenghite 9/11 was cut and pasted and disproved. John Stocell on 20/20 did the same to Sicko. You never can believe any thing in a Micheal Moore film.

 

[Cruentus]

Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock. More than half of farenghite 9/11 was cut and pasted and disproved. John Stocell on 20/20 did the same to Sicko. You never can believe any thing in a Micheal Moore film.

What point from the movie did you find most glaringly wrong?

 

[AceHBK]

Micheal More is a hypocrite and a propogandist. He screams about Halliburton and the corparate machine, while owning thousands of shares of there stock.

I see nothing wrong with this. I call it a smart business move. It would be one thing if he didn't put them "on blast" b/c he owns stock but he did.