The US Healthcare System Is Just Fine!

i was actually thinking about this the other day while dealing with a typically difficult insurance company.

the loki-esque thing to say is something like, 'would you want the federal government handling your health care?!' fair enough i suppose.

but then if you know anything about dealing with an insurer, you know that it's typically terrible. i think the better antiloki question is, 'why in the meep do you want insurers to deal in health insurance?'

No offense to my bretheren of the United States, and perhaps there is some merit to the philisophical debate of more/less government, but who can defend that our country wouldn't be better with insurers out of the picture, at least for health care needs? Can anyone make an argument why it is better to have people driven to bankruptcy in the most dire point in their lives? Can anyone make an argument as to why you should constantly fear about the loss of health insurance, when this fear obviously impedes true free choice about your pursuits in a career, in life?

And why the meep as so many Americans so meeping blind to the fact that their lives suck because of the health care system that we are responsible for creating, and they won't do a thing about it? It just blows my mind how moronic and self-defeating some Americans can be, when they obviously will take it in the meep, as well as their offspring, if the system isn't fundamentally changed?

Why do we have so many dolts in this country?

LK, how easy is it to emigrate to Canada? Is there room for middle aged, highly skilled and edumacated people in your country?

One word:Lemmings

danged socialists.

If they want health care, join the army. At least that isn't government run.

Do Republican senators have government run insurance? I was wondering because everyone always says they have a really good health care plan. Do the subcontract to a private insurer?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-benefits2-2009aug02,0,7524121.story

I've been starting to wonder: Let's assume we had one single health insurance provider, social or public, whatever. One, single, efficient, benevolent provider who's policies reflect a general concern for all their client's emotional and physical health needs on an individual basis. They make enough profit to pay their workers fairly and their executives a little more than their workers. Because they are the only provider, they don't have to waste money on marketing or anything silly like that.

This, then, becomes the question: For 10% of his salary, what kind of insurance could one man get for his family? If curruption and waste weren't issues, can we really still afford to cure cancer and treat aids or whatever? It seems like people just assume that would be the case. I mean, effing CAT scan mechine-thingeys are rediculously expensive, and they cost several times the average man's hourly wage to operate for that hour, without even considering the extra they need to tack on to the bill to cover taxes and administration costs. Aids drugs are also prohibitively costly. To make just a single months worth of some medications, you have to factor in many manhours of skilled labor and the operating/purchacing/upkeep costs of several complicated, expensive macines.

Cutting-edge medical technology is driven by our meeped up system. If we all got the same coverage under ideal cirmeepstances, what kind of coverage would that be, exactly? Are we asking too much?

Cutting-edge medical technology is driven by our meeped up system

is it?

So as not to completely discount your argument, I would agree to some degree that profit potential, fueled by the ripe pickings of our completely over-priced medical system does help fuel the advancement of technology. But I would completely discount the idea that this advancement would completely cease to exist if a profit motive disappeared. Of course it would be slow to alter the motivation engine, from pure profit to social contribution, but it could happen. I always find this argument from conservatives pretty shallow and a false choice: If motivation is removed, nothing will happen.

So, if an ambitious person is over-taxed, they will just completely stop earning money. I highly doubt that. Everyone has their cost/benefit level, but not everyone shuts off when the cost changes... can you picture Donald Trump, Geffen, Eisner, Branson just kicking back and saying 'meep it, I'm done with working'... no, these meepers, true entrepreneurs, not the money meep-sucking meeps the pubs support, would do WHATEVER it took to succeed.

Anywho, on the side of innovation, I think that motivations can take many forms, and the one-note that has been over-played in the US for decades is that the ONLY motivation is profit. It is about time that philosophy is put to rest, because not all Americans are so one dimensional and weak as to believe that.

Hmm... That wasn't the point. I didn't mean to imply that changing the profit scheme would freeze innovation. What I meant was this: Since our idea of what is acceptable health care has been formed partly on the available technology, if we give everyone equal health care, can we afford to give everyone 'acceptable' health care?

We know that, for those who have insurance, there are certain conditions that are effectively treatable - But those who have health care (typically) have more money to contribute to their health care, so the average number of dollars per person floating through the system is higher than if everyone had equal health care. Therefore, if we have universal health care, but costs don't come down and the average percentage of income paid in doesn't increase, then those who have health care in the universal system (everyone) will have a lower standard of care than those who have health care under the current system (some fraction of the people). So some of those conditions that are effectively treatable that I mentioned at the top of this paragraph will no longer be treatable.

Given this, what I meant to ask was, if we get universal health care, can we maintain the current level of healthcare we have today (for those that have it), even if we remove 100% of the corruption and waste from the system? In other words, is the wastefulness of the current system greater than or equal to the additional load of those who are currently uninsured?

And even if it is, we can't even hope to get rid of 100% of the waste. My gut tells me that optimistically we can eliminate 50%, so realistically I'd have to estimate closer to 20-30%. So is it correct to expect universal health care at the effectiveness that we have public health care now?

No. It cannot be done.

And LOL at the idea of government removing any percentage of waste.

Vas,

Could you please charge wrecker 27% more for his monthly subscription?

wrecker, Sorry, there is nothing that LS can do about your costs. Now pay up or GTFO.

Thank God our country wasn't founded by wrecker and his ilk... 'Nah, we can't do this colony thing. Let's just starve or go back home.'

Meh. There is credence to the idea that the government will be as wasteful as it can be at all times.

bigdinwaunakee

Oh you silly boy. It's cute how much blind faith you have in our government. How could they ever lead you astray? I mean, this is the same government that brought us such stunning successes as the War on Drugs, Social Security, The Patriot Act, etc.

Waste, fraud, and abuse are SOP for any government entity. Prove me wrong.

Yes, government is bad, so let's get rid of it. What an intelligent stance.

wrecker, you have such an groundbreaking view, I must have a few minutes while I get my head around it. In the meanwhile, if you have anything provided by the government (unemployment check, services, medicare, medicaid), please immediately dispose/destroy them. If your ma or pa, or grammie receives SS, please return those funds immediately.

a word, mr. wrecker?

apparently some of you gays haven't seen what the government has done to the VA lately

meep healthcare. All we need is prayer.

and blowjobs. Don't forget the blowjobs.

Now, meep-wrecker, please envelope my member with your wet lips.

Straw man.

You are taking my prudent distrust of the government and my well founded suspicions that just about anything it touches will turn to meep, as my advocacy for burning it all to the ground. Nice try.

I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

While government is very much full of waste and inefficiency, private, for-profit corporations have turned health care into a business rather than a necessity for survival (in most cases) and just general well-being (in all cases). It can't continue like this.

I would rather have a wasteful, stupid government handling this than a few cutthroat profit-driven corporations deciding who lives or dies based on whether it helps their bottom lines. And why the meep can't we work on making government less wasteful? Oh boo hoo, our government sucks and is teh socialist!!@1 hurr. meeping meepes, make it better then.

Regarding waste and corruption, I believe that there is an inverse correlation between government waste and government transparency. You want to reduce waste? Shine some meeping sunlight on the people doing the wasting. Literally put recording cameras and microphones on the shoulder of everyone who is working on our dime. Anything funded by public money should be subject to unfettered public oversight, and to meaningful, highly publicized correction in every single case of mishandling of that money.

I also believe that it should be considered an act of high treason for any elected representative to vote on (or sign) a piece of legislation without having read it in full and demonstrably understanding what it contains; and that legislative 'riders' need to be completely abolished. And also that all lobbyists should be shot on sight.

With a few slight modifications to the system, I think we could cut some waste.

Sir Wrecker,

I'm waiting for you to provide a functioning alternative to the current, broken private health care system. I won't defend government waste, much like I wouldn't defend private corruption or greed. In the case of health care, which a need of a country's citizens, not a luxury, not a priviledge, I would much rather put in the hands of those (the government) who are charged with the welfare of its citizens, rather than a for profit, who only are responsible for its profits and shareholders.

So, where is your example of a cost-effective, complete coverage system that is run by a private organization? I have no example in the United States, apart from Medicare/Medicaid. What I can tell you from experience, is that my friends that have died of cancer were striken from private insurance, but were cared for by Medicaid.

I don't wish that on you, but perhaps a little pancreatic cancer would make you realize that your argument over ideals means squat when you are the one needing the care. Perhaps we can get you to sign a pledge to always reject public health care if you ever need it? Are you that confident that your ideals will over-run the cancer cells eating your body? Perhaps you can have your dear old papa sign the same form, so when he starts sticking his meep in a blender, due to onset Alzheimers, you can use up his and your hard earned cash to pay for his treatment.

I'm willing to draft said form, if you are so confident in your private option.

Also, your distrust is just an emotion that could only be appeased by some non-realistic, uber-efficient, non-wasteful process or organization. You have a paranoia, but not an interest in finding a solution. You reject anything that isn't perfect, or that would perfectly counter your suspicion (which you know doesn't exist), so why deal with someone in your position? If you offer suggestions, other than some one-inch thought, I'm all for discussing with you.

To date, you haven't... just the same old meep and talking points.

Once again, I'm not defending corruption or inefficiencies, but I can point out said problems in any private business, so this is a non-starter. What about the inefficiencies of the current, health care system? Why do you support those? How hasn't health care turned to meep, after private industry stuck its dirty meep into it?

You know, I started to write a lengthy reply to all of this, but then I noticed I was sort of rambling so I narrowed it down to two points.

1) I never claimed to have a better alternative, I just answered a question.

2) You vomited 'I don't wish that on you, but perhaps a little pancreatic cancer would mablahblahblah...' Well champ, here's the difference between you and me. I really do wish you would get cancer.

Regarding waste and corruption, I believe that there is an inverse correlation between government waste and government transparency. You want to reduce waste? Shine some meeping sunlight on the people doing the wasting. Literally put recording cameras and microphones on the shoulder of everyone who is working on our dime. Anything funded by public money should be subject to unfettered public oversight, and to meaningful, highly publicized correction in every single case of mishandling of that money.

I've said that exact same thing before. Why don't we do this?

Also, come on, people. The government is wasteful, corporations are evil. Can we have a discussion about something that we haven't already been trained to have a discussion about? meep.

I would rather have a wasteful, stupid government handling this than a few cutthroat profit-driven corporations deciding who lives or dies based on whether it helps their bottom lines. And why the meep can't we work on making government less wasteful? Oh boo hoo, our government sucks and is teh socialist!!@1 hurr. meeping meepes, make it better then.

A-meepING-MEN

name='allowFullScreen' value='true'>http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/OTMxMC0zMDIzNA?color=173466

name='allowFullScreen' value='true'>

never a truer word has been spoken

I love to watch Rachel strip people naked.

I support a direct democracy in which only those who score in the highest tenth or fifteenth percentile on IQ tests are allowed to vote. Also, before you cast a ballot for an election, you must take a test designed to confirm that you have a sufficient knowledge and understanding of every major candidate's platform to make an informed decision. Because let's be honest:

1) You shouldn't be voting for representatives if you don't care enough to spend a few days studying the issues

2) Ignorant people who are easily herded serve no purpose whatsoever in any modern republic than to push the agenda of a far minority.

^^^^

Now everyone in America can understand why other world citizens consider Americans unexecusably idiotic. I don't think I'm in even in the middle bracket for smarts, but I look around at all the mouthbreathers and feel pretty meeping good with myselfs.

Once again, I'm embarrassed by this country and its citizens, because we allow this meep to occur... that condemnation does not apply to those in the media that try to call it out... just the rest of us who just sit back and let it take place. I for one am heading out to a few local town halls to see what I can do to speak up for thoughtful debate.... or some knee breaking.