"Support for Healthcare Plan Falls to All Time Low"

[Dylflon]

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Prof: You may have answered this question somewhere but I'm actually curious-

Are you opposed to any state run health care plan or just the one that has been proposed?

My knee jerk reaction to any universal government run healthcare system would be to say "No", but I will entertain any plan that is offered. As for targeted gov. healthcare, I currently like the idea of MedicAid, if not everything about it's delivery.

I will support any plan that controls costs, allows people to choose what type of healthcare they will receive (including their own doctors) or even if they want it, and does not ration care to make ends meet. I have never seen a government run plan that meets any of these requirements.

I actually think government "assistance" is a great idea, meaning using the government to organize the 15% of Americans who don't have health insurance and then present them as a group to insurers to bid on the group as a whole. This is called "risk pooling" and would make this group an economically viable group to insure at reasonable rates. Right now the uninsured must shop as an individual, and the system is built to address groups and manage risk, leaving the individual with few products aimed at them and they are all expensive. I would even be in favor of tax credits to help these people afford the care if they aren't poor enough to qualify for MedicAid.

My main problem with government run anything is that it tends to provide low service and stagnate innovation. Look at telecommunications: For years this was an industry carefully regulated by the government to ensure that everyone had access. While everyone had access, the access was terrible. For decades you had to be issued a phone from the company, rotary phones at that, and eventually push buttons. If you wanted to save mesages, you had to buy an answering machine.

Since deregulation, the products and services have gone through the roof and prices have never been better due to intense competition between companies. We're starting to see it now in Cable TV as well, as Verizon and Comcast start beating each other up. That doesn't mean "free" markets are always the answer. I think cell phone companies need to have the trust-busting hammer come down on them to unlock phones from contracts because I think these "phone-to-service" contracts are artificially raising costs of data service to mobile phones (I mean you, AT&T and Verizon). I don't believe in free markets, I believe in competitive markets (and no, that does not include the US government as a competitor, just a regulator and arbiter). Free markets can become uncompetitive one company dominates the rest and then it harms the consumer because once there is no competition there is no reason to control costs (only to maximize profit).

Yes, I know healthcare isn't phone service, but it shares many of the same challenges (universal service being the main one) and they've managed to control costs and improve service 10 gold by carefully deregulating and ensuring competition. Right now, healthcare remains one of the most regulated services in the country, not even being able to compete over state lines. There is no room for competition to naturally reduce costs and increase service. Those that claim that the current healthcare problems are caused by open markets don't know what an open market is.

Hope that better illustrates my point of view.

EDIT: Game, if your posts are aimed at me, I wouldn't bother. I set you to ignore after our last debate. I find thats the best way to have a rational conversation with you.

[TheGame]

The problem with a 'backstop' government program is that there's no way for it to do anything but add to the deficit and be paid for by tax dollars. Since it can't take the bad with the good, like a private insurance company, it's set up to fail from a financial perspective.

At least a public option has a CHANCE of lowering the deficit and paying for itself, since it could be collecting premiums from the healthy.

(By the way, I'd vote against the extremely compromised version of the public option they have now.)

[Dylflon]

Prof, despite the fact that people can't be turned away from hospitals, would they not still incur massive debt? From what I understand, illness can be financially ruinous in your country. And on a fundamental level, I don't think that could stand.

A friend of mine from New Mexico who is currently in my program in at my university cut himself pretty bad about a month back. He's unemployed and has no medical coverage and he was terrified about going to the hospital thinking that it would deplete his tuition fund.

He went got treatment, and only had to sign a form.

How does this not seem like a good thing to you? Is this not the kind of thing your government is trying to do? Shouldn't you guys be more like Canada?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Prof, despite the fact that people can't be turned away from hospitals, would they not still incur massive debt? From what I understand, illness can be financially ruinous in your country. And on a fundamental level, I don't think that could stand.

While I think you overstate the problem, I don't wholly disagree with your statements. The problem of the uninsured is very real, and either financially ruins the uninsured or we as tax payers pay a ridiculous amount to cover the cost. Any way you cut it, it's a problem we need to address, and I've said that repeatedly. I simply disagree on how to address the problem, and not every answer should be "let the government handle it". In most cases, that has shown to be the worst way to handle problems in terms of quality and cost effectiveness, at least in America.

A friend of mine from New Mexico who is currently in my program in at my university cut himself pretty bad about a month back. He's unemployed and has no medical coverage and he was terrified about going to the hospital thinking that it would deplete his tuition fund.

He went got treatment, and only had to sign a form.

How does this not seem like a good thing to you? Is this not the kind of thing your government is trying to do? Shouldn't you guys be more like Canada?

1) If he goes to any accredited college he is likely insured by that college. I was insured by my college and received healthcare with the charges handled by that insurance, I just had to visit the on-campus nurse-practitioner first. He was probably ignorant of what his tuition entailed and/or paranoid. This is actually a pretty good example of how the idea of healthcare in the US is far worse than the reality.

2) I will stand by my statements I made in my posts above this one. I am not against government run healthcare, per se, I am against terrible healthcare plans and the fact that none of the plans offered meet any of the reasonable criteria I've set as my standard. Also, since the US has never had a entitlement program that has met cost and/or quality standards, I want to see very detailed evidence that it WILL do what the politicians say it will before supporting it.

[Dylflon]

Fair enough.

Strange crossroads you guys seem to be at. Poor people need surgeries and Fox News has everyone freaked that government controlled health care is fascism or socialism or something, and if the government tried to regulate the current system, everyone would shit their pants.

Would your personal concerns lie with the fact that you feel your tax money would be going to a government system that is less effective than you would like it to be? From what I understand, the HMOs already in place won't be tampered with so your quality of health care shouldn't change right?

The sad issue at this point is for people with no coverage, an average government health plan is better than no plan.

[Professor S]

Would your personal concerns lie with the fact that you feel your tax money would be going to a government system that is less effective than you would like it to be? From what I understand, the HMOs already in place won't be tampered with so your quality of health care shouldn't change right?

Thats what the politicians say, but it's not the truth of the legislation, and certainly wouldn't be the end result. Example:

The current public option based plan was passed, companies would be fined if they didn't offer insurance to their employees. The problem is the fine ($8,000 I believe) would be far less per employee than they pay for their healthcare (average of $12,000+ per year I think. Mine is $9,000 a year). So why would any company keep offering insurance? Instead, they'll drop the private insurance (why not if the public option is there to meet the demand?) and pay the fine.

The sad issue at this point is for people with no coverage, an average government health plan is better than no plan.

I understand that. But that still makes up 15% of the American people. I don't feel that universal coverage should come at the cost of quality of care. We're better than that and we can improve care, increase innovation and reduce costs while covering people who need it and want it.

The problem is the current arguments have little to do with healthcare, and are more based in ideology instead of pragmatic solutions.

[Szymon]

Also, trying to steer this conversation back towards the original topic, I think it's worth asking the general population how much they know about the proposed plan. Politics in the USA is a popularity contest. Public opinion on the issue is easily influenced by motherfucking Oprah and equally politically inexperienced social icons. Polls are biased, votes are changed (even in the presidential election!) and data is skewed for specific reasons. My outlook on politics is pretty cynical today.