Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Guest Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:00 pm

So there was a lot of talk there about the universal healthcare that we should be expecting soon enough and the rather expensive pricetag it entails. Anyway, I've been throwing this around lately, but what about nixing the whole public funding of the private sector (a la the voucher system that never seems to gain traction) and just creating more nationalized hospitals like the VA? Price-wise, all I can do is speculate about the costs (initial costs would likely be very large vs. current proposal, but maybe it could be cheaper after some years), but it apparently made sense to someone back when they created the VA hospitals as opposed to giving veterans an extensive health insurance plan. Also, this would allow others to keep their own health insurance and continue going to private hospitals as they see fit.

BTW, my intent isn't to argue that universal health care is or isn't a good idea; it's simply that IF we're going to go down that route, what might be the best way to go about it. Thoughts?

Guest Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:06 pm

I think nationalizing the healthcare industry will have a more significant and positive impact on Americans than will the nationalization of the mortgage industry, ala FNMA etc...

An MRI for my finger that I injured with my brain, $640. I paid $10, my insurance company paid $340. In what other industry is there 40% markup when paid by an individual?? My point is that our healtcare system as it is is wasteful. We can do it better, faster and cheaper, but such defies the capitalist system. However, in the face of that, a capitalist system implies the possibility for competition brought on by a free market, which isnt a very accurate paradigm. It's not as if I had a chance to shop around for an MRI vendor and was able to accurately weigh price/performance as I would if I were buying a used car.

I imagine that when you look at the real costs of health care, they are significantly less than what we are paying for it as a whole. Nationalization seems to be an effective way to handle this imbalance, however I dont see that it will fly as a solution...

Guest Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:34 am

Pez, that's sort of what I'm thinking as far as possible cost savings. I also agree that the chances of getting something like that going is slim to none. But I don't see any reason not to if we view healthcare as part of an national infrastructure - again, we already publicly fund schools and things like that. I guess I'm just reluctant to see extensive tax dollars lining the wallets of corporate hospital owners.

So nobody else has any opinions on this? Really?

Guest Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:04 am

SavoyTruffle wrote:Pez, that's sort of what I'm thinking as far as possible cost savings. I also agree that the chances of getting something like that going is slim to none. But I don't see any reason not to if we view healthcare as part of an national infrastructure - again, we already publicly fund schools and things like that. I guess I'm just reluctant to see extensive tax dollars lining the wallets of corporate hospital owners.

So nobody else has any opinions on this? Really?

I think the comparison to schools is a very interesting one... where public education is seen as a basic need so too should public healthcare. Yet (as with schools) there are private offerings that provide for an educational experience outside what the taxpayer is able to provide.

I think that is important from many standpoints, and has moral implications as well... Should public healthcare provide for abortions, should they provide evil family planning...

floridafun Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:38 pm

welll savoy there was this line at the end of the original post--"BTW, my intent isn't to argue that universal health care is or isn't a good idea; it's simply that IF we're going to go down that route, what might be the best way to go about it. Thoughts?"

i am certain we will have something very similar to universal in the next few years, that will soon evolve into universal..and i am all for it. i am not in on the planning of how to structure it for mr obama. it will certainly be interesting and there will be unforeseen glitches of course.....i am interested in any ideas on how to implement but i dont have a general plan in my mind.

Guest Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:16 pm

floridafun wrote:welll savoy there was this line at the end of the original post--"BTW, my intent isn't to argue that universal health care is or isn't a good idea; it's simply that IF we're going to go down that route, what might be the best way to go about it. Thoughts?"

Of course...that falls into my "Same ol' crap" listing of topics that I typically avoid nowadays. I think we all know the arguments and participants would be obviously predictable and likely to involve personal attacks. Or maybe only I and my sage wisdom can foresee that. Rolling Eyes

floridafun wrote:i am certain we will have something very similar to universal in the next few years, that will soon evolve into universal..and i am all for it. i am not in on the planning of how to structure it for mr obama. it will certainly be interesting and there will be unforeseen glitches of course.....i am interested in any ideas on how to implement but i dont have a general plan in my mind.

*cough* COP OUT! *cough* Sleep

Sorry, I'm just messing with you there. But I unfortunately find this par for the course for most people - they have positions on general ideas, but they don't care about the logistics which are just as important.

Guest Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:23 pm

pez wrote:I think the comparison to schools is a very interesting one... where public education is seen as a basic need so too should public healthcare. Yet (as with schools) there are private offerings that provide for an educational experience outside what the taxpayer is able to provide.

I think that is important from many standpoints, and has moral implications as well... Should public healthcare provide for abortions, should they provide evil family planning...

Yeah, I thought about those as well - indeed, those would be difficult issues to address. But I guess, for good or ill, it would probably include the same services that the original idea for universal health insurance would cover.

Guest Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:43 pm

Hey, look FF: Obama needs YOU to tell him how to fix the health care system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28081017/

Markwes Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:36 pm

pez wrote:I think the comparison to schools is a very interesting one... where public education is seen as a basic need so too should public healthcare. Yet (as with schools) there are private offerings that provide for an educational experience outside what the taxpayer is able to provide.

I think that is important from many standpoints, and has moral implications as well... Should public healthcare provide for abortions, should they provide evil family planning...

But there is a big difference in public education versus public healthcare. We know that (in general) it will cost X dollars for each kid to go through the public school system. We do not know how many times an individual will go to the doctor every time they sleep in the wrong position and have an ache because now it's much cheaper. I'm not sure what the answer is IF we are going to go down that route. From what I have read, national healthcare has not worked very well anywhere it has been implemented.

Guest Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:18 pm

Markwes wrote:From what I have read, national healthcare has not worked very well anywhere it has been implemented.

How about if we compare a national universal health care program with only ONE failing US Automaker. These supposedly "private" and absolutely vital institutions have proven that their business models cannot survive without substantial amounts of government subsidy. Why should we place a lower value on health than on producing a substandard automobile?

Markwes Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:02 pm

meta4 wrote:
Markwes wrote:From what I have read, national healthcare has not worked very well anywhere it has been implemented.

How about if we compare a national universal health care program with only ONE failing US Automaker. These supposedly "private" and absolutely vital institutions have proven that their business models cannot survive without substantial amounts of government subsidy. Why should we place a lower value on health than on producing a substandard automobile?

You are talking apples and oranges. The US automakers failed because they put out an inferior product. At the same time, other US companies such as Walmart have thrived because of a good business model, which helps the American economy. I'm not sure why you compare the two.

Guest Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:03 am

Markwes wrote:
meta4 wrote:
Markwes wrote:From what I have read, national healthcare has not worked very well anywhere it has been implemented.

How about if we compare a national universal health care program with only ONE failing US Automaker. These supposedly "private" and absolutely vital institutions have proven that their business models cannot survive without substantial amounts of government subsidy. Why should we place a lower value on health than on producing a substandard automobile?
You are talking apples and oranges. The US automakers failed because they put out an inferior product. At the same time, other US companies such as Walmart have thrived because of a good business model, which helps the American economy. I'm not sure why you compare the two.

floridafun Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:09 am

i was for it before i was against it...i just read what faux says and i dont want even more terrorists than obama already brings to the presidency!! it must be fair and balanced because it comes from faux entertainment!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/fox-news-universal-health-care-breeds-terrorists/

Today on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer attacked Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO and its positive portrayal of the health care in countries such as Britain and France. He argued that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.”

pig

Another way to nationalize healthcare? 45492

Another way to nationalize healthcare? 638766

**Mort** Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:34 am

floridafun wrote:i was for it before i was against it...i just read what faux says and i dont want even more terrorists than obama already brings to the presidency!! it must be fair and balanced because it comes from faux entertainment!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/fox-news-universal-health-care-breeds-terrorists/

Today on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer attacked Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO and its positive portrayal of the health care in countries such as Britain and France. He argued that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.”

THAT IS THE DUMBEST DAMN THING I HAVE EVER READ. WHERE IN THE HELL IS National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer COMING FROM? PUT THIS GUY IN A COFFIN AND FLOAT IT DOWN THE RIVER Another way to nationalize healthcare? 755658

Another way to nationalize healthcare? 755658

OMG

Another way to nationalize healthcare? 520147

**Mort** Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:48 am

Health care systems works great in many countries, of course USA is behind the times as usual. I mean what do you expect from a country who still has pot as a class 1 Controlled substance.

The system we have now is a corrupt joke. Everyone should be able to go to a doctor or a hospital when they need it. without it costing their house and everything they own. Because your child gets some outrageous infliction it should not cost you so much that you cannot live long enough to pay it off, in fact the debt is so high that it gets passed on to your benefactors.

We need a total revamp of the system: Doctors will make all the same not one making 700,000 a year and another doing the same thing make 300,000. Insurance company's are choking the system to say the least about them. They are what's holding us back .
The system is not designed for the sick its designed for certain people to get rich very rich

The system will need fail safe audits on a regular basis unlike today where corruption is ramp id.<cant remember how to spell that lol

Scooby01_98 Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:36 pm

Nothing like wanting communism huh Mort....All make the same money.....yeah that works real well.... affraid

Guest Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:00 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:Nothing like wanting communism huh Mort....All make the same money.....yeah that works real well....

Most companies say that healthcare costs and pension are the main reasons why we are not competitive with other countries. Why not alleviate that burdon on our companies and nationalize healthcare?

Markwes Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:21 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:Nothing like wanting communism huh Mort....All make the same money.....yeah that works real well....

Wow, that was my exact thought too.

Mort and Bman, where are you getting your info? I have never heard any accounts of national healthcare being successful.

Scooby01_98 Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:05 am

Just google England health care problem, Canada health care problem, etc. You are talking about the US government running something else, a government that can't manage SS, Medicare, can't even get the bailout right (i.e. AIG, Citibank etc).

Now do I think government could help sure but strictly a health program like in the socialist countries no way.

The system needs to have ins premiums, co pays etc. No free rides no matter what your income and no scaled fees based on income.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:54 am

Scooby01_98 wrote:Just google England health care problem, Canada health care problem, etc. You are talking about the US government running something else, a government that can't manage SS, Medicare, can't even get the bailout right (i.e. AIG, Citibank etc).

Now do I think government could help sure but strictly a health program like in the socialist countries no way.

The system needs to have ins premiums, co pays etc. No free rides no matter what your income and no scaled fees based on income.

You could google England health care success too and Canadian health care success, plus we have The Canookian here lives it every day, whose cousin had a heart transplant.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:48 am

Markwes wrote:
meta4 wrote:
Markwes wrote:From what I have read, national healthcare has not worked very well anywhere it has been implemented.

How about if we compare a national universal health care program with only ONE failing US Automaker. These supposedly "private" and absolutely vital institutions have proven that their business models cannot survive without substantial amounts of government subsidy. Why should we place a lower value on health than on producing a substandard automobile?
You are talking apples and oranges. The US automakers failed because they put out an inferior product. At the same time, other US companies such as Walmart have thrived because of a good business model, which helps the American economy. I'm not sure why you compare the two.

I guess I should have asked why you think it hasn't worked well anywhere. Are you looking at the costs? Feedback from patients? Which countries specifically are you comparing? I've heard good things from France, and Germany. Doctors over there (Germany) seem to think it's doing well and they claim Europeans are healthier because of these programs. The good reports I hear from France and Switzerland had positive things to say about Pre and Neonatal care (FR) and in Switzerland they have a special part of the program that helps families get some of the best care in the world for Downs/Aspbergers/Autism.

In my previous comment, I guess I should have been more _______ when I was comparing a national healthcare program to a bailed out bank or auto company. Yes, perhaps these are ideas that in the past we would rather not have tax dollars go to, but ethically it's a hard sell to prefer a shiny new sub-standard American automobile instead of good healthcare.

Which do you think makes people happier? To be in good health or to have a new car?

**Mort** Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:52 am

Well true that didn't come out right but why should one doctor cost me more then the other one just cause he is in more demand and he is doing the same procedures as the other one

And why should you be denied health care cause you have a preexisting condition?

Its a human right and we should not loose our homes to have to pay for it.

My wife's cancer treatments and operations were 70,000.00.

What person can afford that?

Scooby01_98 Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:20 am

Mort wrote:Well true that didn't come out right but why should one doctor cost me more then the other one just cause he is in more demand and he is doing the same procedures as the other one

And why should you be denied health care cause you have a preexisting condition?

Its a human right and we should not loose our homes to have to pay for it.

My wife's cancer treatments and operations were 70,000.00.

What person can afford that?

Why shouldn't a doctor that is better charge more for his services? You didn't have to use him, you could have stayed with the other one.

Did the other insurance company drop you? Or did you just change? If it was from job loss did you not continue the COBRA payments trying to save money? Then why should the new insurance cover a condition while you are trying to cut costs by switching insurance?

While I am sorry for your wife's condition. But why should I i.e. the taxpayer pay for it?

Now I will agree there needs to be price control (and that is the wrong word). If you go to doctor A for a doctor visit with insurance and the cost is $75 (before co pays etc) then it should be the same price of $75 for a person without insurance. Maybe the government should take over the malpractice insurance since they i.e. congress won't do anything against the outrageous payoffs that juries award. Costing malpractice insurance to go up so much that doctors can not afford to practice anymore.

Right now I am just a pissed off taxpayer. Pissed off because 40 some percent of the taxpayers pay nothing to the federal gov't and they expect everything.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:33 pm

40% pay nothing? Trying to remember when I ever paid nothing to the fed.... I have been through quite a few tax brackets, and I never remember paying nothing (except maybe as a teenager/full time student).... 40%?

I'm still of the opinion that a national insurance company is better than nationalizing healthcare. People/Employers can buy through private insurers, or through the govt... I think in terms of "fixing healthcrare", this is the low-hanging fruit because it accomplishes two things: it provides negotiating power for the uninsured to negotiate healthcare costs down (earler MRI example, charged 640, settled for 350), and it shifts the tax writeoff for hospitals to be the negotiated amount vs the full amount... e.g. If I was uninsured and got the MRI, then failed to pay for it, declared backruptcy and fled the planet, the hospital would write off the $640 vs the $350). In my mind, there is enough savings in that alone to handle the government providing care for those that choose to go uninsured.

The issue is that is must be illegal or at least very difficult to not have insurance.

Guest Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:42 pm

Scooby01_98 wrote:
Mort wrote:Well true that didn't come out right but why should one doctor cost me more then the other one just cause he is in more demand and he is doing the same procedures as the other one

And why should you be denied health care cause you have a preexisting condition?

Its a human right and we should not loose our homes to have to pay for it.

My wife's cancer treatments and operations were 70,000.00.

What person can afford that?

Why shouldn't a doctor that is better charge more for his services? You didn't have to use him, you could have stayed with the other one.

Did the other insurance company drop you? Or did you just change? If it was from job loss did you not continue the COBRA payments trying to save money? Then why should the new insurance cover a condition while you are trying to cut costs by switching insurance?

While I am sorry for your wife's condition. But why should I i.e. the taxpayer pay for it?

Now I will agree there needs to be price control (and that is the wrong word). If you go to doctor A for a doctor visit with insurance and the cost is $75 (before co pays etc) then it should be the same price of $75 for a person without insurance. Maybe the government should take over the malpractice insurance since they i.e. congress won't do anything against the outrageous payoffs that juries award. Costing malpractice insurance to go up so much that doctors can not afford to practice anymore.

Right now I am just a pissed off taxpayer. Pissed off because 40 some percent of the taxpayers pay nothing to the federal gov't and they expect everything.

Ok I would like to weigh in here. First back in 2004 the week I started dialysis my colon ruptured and I was in Lutheran Hospital for over 30 days, running up a bill of over $350,000 and my dialysis for that year (2004) added another $50,000 to my yearly tab. M-Plan forced me out so insurance companies do cut their losses at the expense of someone's health. That should NOT be allowed to happen.

Secondly, your comment about being a pissed of taxpayer is kind of remarkable. So you think you should not pay for healthcare for the poor and underemployed. So Scooby needs a few extra dollars so that means Sally and Steve go without medicare and die. We are a better nation than that. If our society is so broke then I say we cut the military to the bare bones and just defend our own country, bring the troops home from Europe, Japan, Asia, the Middle East and just defend our borders. I would much rather take care of my brothers and sisters here at home that need help than play world policeman.

Third, you guys rail against national healthcare but almost all of the rest of the world has it and I have known Canuck for almost 7 years now and he has never complained about their healthcare up north.

If I had to choose between paying an extra couple percentages in taxes and having ALL Americans have good quality healthcare sign me up. I can see the bigger picture, not just the impact to MY wallet. Greed is what got us into this problem, the greater good can get us out of it.

Sponsored content

Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?

Re: Another way to nationalize healthcare?