Healthcare questions and conspiracy theories

[T-Dawg]

I just had a conversation with my mom about healthcare and a couple other things. The following issues were brought up:

1.) She claims that having government-run healthcare will destroy the private sector, because the government can survive running a deficit, so they can offer good care for a low price, while the private companies can't, and have to have higher prices. This will drive the private companies out of business. When I pointed out that private companies, according to her own words, offer better care, she denied it, contradicting herself. She went on to state that the government healthcare would monopolize the healthcare industry and control all the doctors and hospitals. Ordinarily, I would approve of that, but factoring in that it's the US government... eh, I'm kind of iffy... if a republican gets elected and gains control of the healthcare system, they (the homophobic nationalist corporationist party) would have a monopoly on healthcare... think about it, they could skyrocket prices so they could profit off of it, they could deny coverage to people they discriminate against (ie, homosexuals), heck, they could even use it to blackmail the populace ("support the war or we won't provide you with healthcare").

2.) She mentioned that Canadians have to wait 3 months to get important surgeries, and many will cross the border to get it done in America within a week. She seems to actually believe this. What do I tell her when she uses such annecdotes and propaganda?

3.) She mentioned that whether or not a person could pay, if they went into the emergency room bleeding and dying, the hospital HAS to treat them. According to her, since they can't pay, the cost of treating them goes into our taxes. I probably should have mentioned that it would help if they didn't wait until the patients were bleeding and dying, but I forgot to mention that.


It's also notable that mom seems to base her political stance on what's best for HER. For example, she knows that Bush wasn't a great president, but she liked his presidency better than Obama's because none of Bush's actions affected her personal life (for example, I mentioned the Patriot Act, and how it was so vague that it could be used to label any sort of protest as terrorism, and mom's response was that she never needed to protest anything), whereas Obama is threatening to destroy her healthcare (or so she thinks). Do all republicans think like that?


Normally, I'm all for socialism, but Obama's proposal for the healthcare bill at this point doesn't seem to be much more than pandering to the insurance companies and an attempt to get more power. The levels of authoritarianism here are scary. Obama hasn't repealed the Patriot Act, which makes me wonder if he's planning on using it at some point.

The conspiracy is becoming clearer.
First the big bankers got the Federal Reserve in, which allowed them to control inflation, and cause depressions and create bubbles. This is generally the event used to mark the formation of the wealthy elite as we know it today. Later on, Reagan made obscene tax cuts (allowing the megacorporations to form and grow larger) and gave the republicans a good name by creating an economic bubble. If I'm not mistaken, this bubble collapsed during Clinton's presidency, paving the way for a republican president. Reagan also hired the Taliban and Al Queda to fight off the Russians in Afghanistans. Later, Bush used them as scapegoats for a war that crushed the economy and served to benefit the wealthy elite. Even the talk radio show propagandists themselves have said it - Now is a GREAT time to be BUYING stuff... if you have money! It seems that the wealthy are buying everything out (or at least they are in a position where they can do so). And now Obama is making a "healthcare" bill that, from what I know of it, will force people to buy insurance or face a fine, allowing the health insurance CEOs to put their prices higher (since people are legally required to buy from them), not to mention that he's handed free money to the CEOs because the megacorporations are "too big to fail." From what I've heard from my mom, the white house is also planning on cracking down on Fox News. Now, I hate Faux as much as you do, but isn't censorship kind of, you know... WRONG?!? And Obama still hasn't repealed the Patriot Act that Bush made. So Obama's keeping the totaltarian-ish laws Bush put in and openly cracking down on his political opposition, while at the same time passing a far-right healthcare bill while masquerading it as reform. Sounds suspicious.

I don't know about you, but I think our country is heading in the wrong direction, and Obama is on the side of the elite, not us.

Gah, why can't we just get a president on the libertarian left (or at least NOT authoritarian right) and that's not controlled by elite corporate interests...

 

[Minus Habens]

I just had a conversation with my mom about healthcare and a couple other things. The following issues were brought up:

1.) She claims that having government-run healthcare will destroy the private sector, because the government can survive running a deficit, so they can offer good care for a low price, while the private companies can't, and have to have higher prices. This will drive the private companies out of business. When I pointed out that private companies, according to her own words, offer better care, she denied it, contradicting herself. She went on to state that the government healthcare would monopolize the healthcare industry and control all the doctors and hospitals. Ordinarily, I would approve of that, but factoring in that it's the US government... eh, I'm kind of iffy... if a republican gets elected and gains control of the healthcare system, they (the homophobic nationalist corporationist party) would have a monopoly on healthcare... think about it, they could skyrocket prices so they could profit off of it, they could deny coverage to people they discriminate against (ie, homosexuals), heck, they could even use it to blackmail the populace ("support the war or we won't provide you with healthcare").

I agree with your mother. It makes total sense, going by the waste involved in current government programs, that the public option would be a cesspool of waste backed up by more and more of our tax dollars. They will continue to keep the premiums for the government option low while private insurers will be forced to increase their premiums to keep afloat. Eventually more and more people will not be able to afford private insurance and will have to turn to the government option. This will only hurt the private sector more. I believe they will eventually go out of business.

I must assume that this is the governments goal... Otherwise they would not keep us from buying medications cheaper from Canada, they would allow us to buy insurance accross state lines (a state issue, but the federal gov. has the power to force interstate commerce via the constitution). They would do more to lower the cost of medications and services (the TRUE problem with the high cost of health insurance) if they wanted more people to be able to afford health insurance.

And, on a side note, ALL politicians are corporate whores!!! Not just the republicans...

2.) She mentioned that Canadians have to wait 3 months to get important surgeries, and many will cross the border to get it done in America within a week. She seems to actually believe this. What do I tell her when she uses such annecdotes and propaganda?

It is true for certain procedures. Now, as to the extent? Who knows. The numbers are distorted by both sides to push thier agenda... Now, it IS conceivable that wait times will be longer if you introduce millions of more people into a system without introducing more doctors, nurses, etc. But, this should equallize over time...

Granted, it is hard to determine what is overblown propaganda from BOTH sides when trying to look into the good and the bad of ANY particular issue...

3.) She mentioned that whether or not a person could pay, if they went into the emergency room bleeding and dying, the hospital HAS to treat them. According to her, since they can't pay, the cost of treating them goes into our taxes. I probably should have mentioned that it would help if they didn't wait until the patients were bleeding and dying, but I forgot to mention that.

Yes, for emergency care, hospitals have to provide stabalizing care. In most cases this is not something that could have been prevented, i.e. broken leg, gashes, and other spontaneous accidents... This is one of the better arguments in favor of the healthcare reform... The cost of medical services are increased by the hospitals due to people not paying for treatment, and IF it is offset by our tax dollars anyways, then having those people covered by the government wouldn't really cost anything extra... Either way WE are having to pay for it....

It's also notable that mom seems to base her political stance on what's best for HER. For example, she knows that Bush wasn't a great president, but she liked his presidency better than Obama's because none of Bush's actions affected her personal life (for example, I mentioned the Patriot Act, and how it was so vague that it could be used to label any sort of protest as terrorism, and mom's response was that she never needed to protest anything), whereas Obama is threatening to destroy her healthcare (or so she thinks). Do all republicans think like that?

EVERYONE should protest the patriot act!!! That gives the government waaaaay too much power. Even if you trusted the republicans with that power, do you also trust the democrats when they are in control (or vice versa) I don't think it is a GOP thing though... Why do the democrats keep voting to continue it!?!?!? It is a government power thing!!!!

Normally, I'm all for socialism, but Obama's proposal for the healthcare bill at this point doesn't seem to be much more than pandering to the insurance companies and an attempt to get more power. The levels of authoritarianism here are scary. Obama hasn't repealed the Patriot Act, which makes me wonder if he's planning on using it at some point.

Attempt for power? YES! Pandering to the insurance companies? NO! The proposed legislation would hurt the private insurance companies the MOST!!!

The conspiracy is becoming clearer.
First the big bankers got the Federal Reserve in, which allowed them to control inflation, and cause depressions and create bubbles. This is generally the event used to mark the formation of the wealthy elite as we know it today. Later on, Reagan made obscene tax cuts (allowing the megacorporations to form and grow larger) and gave the republicans a good name by creating an economic bubble. If I'm not mistaken, this bubble collapsed during Clinton's presidency, paving the way for a republican president. Reagan also hired the Taliban and Al Queda to fight off the Russians in Afghanistans. Later, Bush used them as scapegoats for a war that crushed the economy and served to benefit the wealthy elite. Even the talk radio show propagandists themselves have said it - Now is a GREAT time to be BUYING stuff... if you have money! It seems that the wealthy are buying everything out (or at least they are in a position where they can do so). And now Obama is making a "healthcare" bill that, from what I know of it, will force people to buy insurance or face a fine, allowing the health insurance CEOs to put their prices higher (since people are legally required to buy from them), not to mention that he's handed free money to the CEOs because the megacorporations are "too big to fail." From what I've heard from my mom, the white house is also planning on cracking down on Fox News. Now, I hate Faux as much as you do, but isn't censorship kind of, you know... WRONG?!? And Obama still hasn't repealed the Patriot Act that Bush made. So Obama's keeping the totaltarian-ish laws Bush put in and openly cracking down on his political opposition, while at the same time passing a far-right healthcare bill while masquerading it as reform. Sounds suspicious.

Although I believe you are wrong on a few points, your overall point that dems and the GOP is only concerned with an increase in government control is spot on, IMO!!!

And, FoxNEWS may be a spokesperson for the RIGHT... You do realize the LEFT has thier spokesperson as well, right??? *Cough* MSNBC *Cough*

I don't know about you, but I think our country is heading in the wrong direction, and Obama is on the side of the elite, not us.

Gah, why can't we just get a president on the libertarian left (or at least NOT authoritarian right) and that's not controlled by elite corporate interests...

We just need some people that will advocate castrating the government, AND giving the people personal LIBERTY!!!! I don't play the left/right paradigm BS. That is a weapon the government uses to keep the masses AGAINST each other. It would not suprise me in the least if Bush and Obama are sitting in the WH together laughing at us all, knowing full well thier plan of divide and conquer is well on it way to succeeding!

Just remember that POWER CORRUPTS, and nobody is above power's influence, NOT DEMS and NOT the GOP! Look at how the governments have turned out throughout history. They most always turn against the people! That is precisely why we can NOT afford to give the government too much POWER!

Anyways, that is my two cents.

How is that for paranoid!?

 

[rojse]

Private healthcare still exists in countries where public healthcare is available. People still want elective surgeries not covered by public healthcare, such as cosmetic surgeries, or refuse to wait when they can pay money to have operations performed much quicker.

 

[Phasmid]

3.) She mentioned that whether or not a person could pay, if they went into the emergency room bleeding and dying, the hospital HAS to treat them. According to her, since they can't pay, the cost of treating them goes into our taxes. I probably should have mentioned that it would help if they didn't wait until the patients were bleeding and dying, but I forgot to mention that.

As someone who lives in a country with nationalised healthcare, I don't think you could comprehend how disgusting that statement is to me.

 

[T-Dawg]

As someone who lives in a country with nationalised healthcare, I don't think you could comprehend how disgusting that statement is to me.

Don't blame me, my mom's the one who said it... =/

 

[Valjean]

I just had a conversation with my mom about healthcare and a couple other things. The following issues were brought up:

1.) She claims that having government-run healthcare will destroy the private sector,

Who's talking about government-run? Using this term completely distorts the issue. True government run (socialized) healthcare was never even on the table. The proposals she's objecting to would actually increase the independence of Drs and hospitals.
What is this "private sector" she's so concerned about? What does it do? What service does it provide the public?

because the government can survive running a deficit, so they can offer good care for a low price, while the private companies can't, and have to have higher prices. This will drive the private companies out of business.

Is she aware that many countries rely on non-profit private insurance companies, rather than government reimbursement for their national healthcare? How does she explain how Germany manages to provide excellent, universal healthcare, at less than half what we pay, while relying on private insurance companies?

for their When I pointed out that private companies, according to her own words, offer better care, she denied it, contradicting herself. She went on to state that the government healthcare would monopolize the healthcare industry and control all the doctors and hospitals.

A socialized system, like that of the Veteran's Administration or the UK does monopolize and control the industry, but, as I pointed out, no-one is proposing such a system. Where did she get this misleading idee fixe?
Currently our Drs and hospitals are largely controlled by the insurance industry. Propositions like single-payer or "public option" would free the Drs to operate independently and prescribe according to patient need. So by removing the insurance payment clerk from the equation the proposed public systems would have exactly the opposite effect from the one she fears. Such a system would increase practitioner independence.

2.) She mentioned that Canadians have to wait 3 months to get important surgeries, and many will cross the border to get it done in America within a week. She seems to actually believe this. What do I tell her when she uses such annecdotes and propaganda?

If such blatherskite is a matter of faith there'll be no breaking it, but if she's still open to facts a google search should clarify the matter.
I'm curious about her bringing up Canada as a universal example. Is she aware of the other countries where you can simply walk into any Dr's office and receive quick, efficient, inexpensive care?

3.) She mentioned that whether or not a person could pay, if they went into the emergency room bleeding and dying, the hospital HAS to treat them. According to her, since they can't pay, the cost of treating them goes into our taxes. I probably should have mentioned that it would help if they didn't wait until the patients were bleeding and dying, but I forgot to mention that.

This is part of the reason we pay twice as much in healthcare-directed tax than any other country. I'm always amazed that in the raging debate on helthcare funding no-one ever seems to point out that public funding would actually cost us less than what we're currently paying.

It's also notable that mom seems to base her political stance on what's best for HER. For example, she knows that Bush wasn't a great president, but she liked his presidency better than Obama's because none of Bush's actions affected her personal life (for example, I mentioned the Patriot Act, and how it was so vague that it could be used to label any sort of protest as terrorism, and mom's response was that she never needed to protest anything), whereas Obama is threatening to destroy her healthcare (or so she thinks). Do all republicans think like that?

Yes, they all do Perhaps it should be called the dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, profit over people, do unto others before they do unto you party.

Normally, I'm all for socialism, but Obama's proposal for the healthcare bill at this point doesn't seem to be much more than pandering to the insurance companies and an attempt to get more power. The levels of authoritarianism here are scary. Obama hasn't repealed the Patriot Act, which makes me wonder if he's planning on using it at some point.

I think Obama got his reputation as a liberal reformer only in contrast to fascistic caste of the then current Bush administration. Obama never claimed to be a liberal. He was always middle-of-the-road, by current standards. Even Nixon was more liberal than Obama, comparatively.

Gah, why can't we just get a president on the libertarian left (or at least NOT authoritarian right) and that's not controlled by elite corporate interests...

In a word: No public funding of elections. As long as political office costs millions to achieve and maintain politicians will be bought by those corporations rich enough to fund their elections.

 

[T-Dawg]

Who's talking about government-run? Using this term completely distorts the issue. True government run (socialized) healthcare was never even on the table. The proposals she's objecting to would actually increase the independence of Drs and hospitals.
What is this "private sector" she's so concerned about? What does it do? What service does it provide the public?

Dunno, we should ask her. I've always thought of the private sector as a bad thing.

Is she aware that many countries rely on non-profit private insurance companies, rather than government reimbursement for their national healthcare? How does she explain how Germany manages to provide excellent, universal healthcare, at less than half what we pay, while relying on private insurance companies?

I didn't ask her . I don't really know enough about foreign healthcare to defend it, I just know it's better than the US healthcare.

If such blatherskite is a matter of faith there'll be no breaking it, but if she's still open to facts a google search should clarify the matter.I'm curious about her bringing up Canada as a universal example. Is she aware of the other countries where you can simply walk into any Dr's office and receive quick, efficient, inexpensive care?

I don't think she is aware of that =O.

Yes, they all do Perhaps it should be called the dog-eat-dog, every man for himself, profit over people, do unto others before they do unto you party.

Too long. I think the word "Capitalist" sums up all those qualities nicely, yah? But then, many people still think of capitalism as being a good thing, so I dunno =/.

I think Obama got his reputation as a liberal reformer only in contrast to fascistic caste of the then current Bush administration. Obama never claimed to be a liberal. He was always middle-of-the-road, by current standards. Even Nixon was more liberal than Obama, comparatively.

Wasn't Nixon a conservative republican? O_O

In a word: No public funding of elections. As long as political office costs millions to achieve and maintain politicians will be bought by those corporations rich enough to fund their elections.

But why does it take millions to get a political position? How much does making posters and giving speeches cost? Do people actually have to buy speechgiving time and the right to put up posters?

 

[Valjean]

It would probably be a good thing for you and your mom to familiarize yourselves with the pros and cons of, and the various types of healthcare systems before forming any firm opinions on the matter.
Here's a quick overview of the four basic healthcare strategies used around the world: (I hope this works...) FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five countries: health care systems -- the four basic models | PBS
Click on the homepage and you and mum can watch an interesting documentary about some representative healthcare systems.

Americans seem to think this healthcare problem is a new and controversial problem; that no-one has ever tackled it before and that we need to invent a system from scratch. This is ridiculous. We're re-inventing the wheel. Why do we refuse to aknowledge that other countries successfully tackled universal healthcare years ago. We could just pick the system or systems that would best suit us from an already existing smorgasbord.

Yes, Nixon was a conservative Republican, but you have to realize how far to the right we've drifted in the past thirty years. Yesterday's moderate right is today's far left. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson would be considered radical leftists by today's standards.

While one might win a seat on the city council or animal control board with some placards, handbills and influential friends, a powerful officer like a US senator wakes each morning knowing he'll have to raise $20,000 (that's twenty thousand, average) that day, and every day, if he expects to be re-elected for another term. To raise that kind of money you have to make a lot of promises to a lot of rich corporate "donors."

 

[.lava]

hi i think it would be a little childish to ask but can someone please explain what's this about shortly? what's going on? what's changing in USA about healthcare?





.

 

[rojse]

hi i think it would be a little childish to ask but can someone please explain what's this about shortly? what's going on? what's changing in USA about healthcare?

Obama is currently attempting to draft and pass healthcare legislation. Many people, including citizens, politicians, and lobbyists, are opposed to this.

The opposition by the second and third groups could well be debated by account of the fact that both have a conflict of interest in the matter.

I'm also not sure how well-versed the entirety of the first group is as to the problems of universal healthcare contrasted to the user-pays system of America.

 

[.lava]

i am confused. how many American citizens are there without health insurance? would this new law help them? what makes some of you think Obama is on the side of elite? isn't private insurance companies elite?

ps: i am sincerely sorry if my questions were silly. excuse me if necessary i kinda dislike private sector because they seem like bloodsucker vampires. a healthcare system that helps everyone equally and makes no discrimination that depends on money sounds good to me. so yea i am confused...how come a new system ends private sector and stand on the side of elite at the same time?






.

 

[rojse]

i am confused. how many American citizens are there without health insurance? would this new law help them? what makes some of you think Obama is on the side of elite? isn't private insurance companies elite?


ps: i am sincerely sorry if my questions were silly. excuse me if necessary i kinda dislike private sector because they seem like bloodsucker vampires. a healthcare system that helps everyone equally and makes no discrimination that depends on money sounds good to me. so yea i am confused...how come a new system ends private sector and stand on the side of elite at the same time?






.

Actually, Lava, these are smart questions being asked by smart people. There are about forty million people without adequate healthcare cover, I recall, and the law would help a great deal of them.

A system that doesn't cover one in eight Americans seems, to me, to be a travesty.