Has anyone been following this closely? I have been so busy and only slowed down this past week and haven't had a chance to read up on it the way I should.
The way I see it there are two issues to be concerned with:
Increased cost for most.
Less effective health care.
I am not so concerned with #1, though I know many are. A part of me does think that everyone should have healhcare and I am not so concerned with having to pay a little more for the poorest to have it. #2 does concern me. The healthcare of the people financing the whole damn thing should NOT suffer. So, how about #2? Are benefits and ability to obtain care going to be compromised under this plan?
You forget one thing: health care requires resources. Resources are always scarce therefore not everyone can have health care even if the government promises to give it to everyone. Some people will still have to go without health care. Who gets to decide whom it will be who goes without?
We already have a system in place that can decide this for us. Why do we need the illusion of a yet "more fair" system when in fact the only fair system is one in which everyone works to provide their own needs?
Under government control scarce resources become even more scarce as the profit motive is replaced by "altruism". There will be no incentive to create new, better, and possibly cheaper treatments that the West has enjoyed under a freeish (albeit, tightly regulated) health care industry. There will be no cure for cancer or any other disease under a government provided health care system.
Have fun getting sick and may your death be a sweet relief from your government sick beds.
LiftiMoron, it is quite obvious that a limited amount of resources ties directly to my question about compromised care. Does anyone intelligent who is not an anarchist caricature have anything to say on this issue?
I remain interested in #1, because costs are not static, and will get worse - supply and demand inevitably commands that more health consumers will be chasing more health care services, and there is no provision in the current health care plan that deals with this unavoidable problem.
Take a snapshot of our aggregate health "profile", for example - a generally unhealthy society that is entirely too dependent on consuming acute health care resources to get healthier. While I don't support a public plan for a number of reasons, I am perfectly willing to admit I would "less against it" in the right circumstances - a society that was generally healthy and did as much as it could independently to get and remain healthy before dipping into health care resources.
As in, a society that generally ate right, exercised, had low bad habits, and treated the health care system as a "last resort" to getting healthy would be a better candidate for a public health care program. We don't have that.
As for #2, I have problems with this as well, because it can't be untangled from #1 - as costs inevitably skyrocket, the quality and availability of care will go down - setting aside the quite obvious problem noted commonly that a health care system run by the equivalent of the DMV would be a disaster.
I think it is very one sided to see rising costs necessarily as a bad thing.
As a society gets richer it makes sense to spend more on health. After all, if you already have a house and a car, why not spend money to live as many years with the best health money can buy?
This is not a problem for the private sector where every new customer is welcome, this is a problem for a publicly run health care though.
Germany for example is proud that 20-25 % of Germanys jobs depend on the production of cars and yet would go apeshit when health related services were around the same percentage.
The point of all this is, seeing rising costs as a negative already means conceding the statists point that they indeed are a problem and that something needs to be done about it, whereas we would see it as a plus if any other private sector was able to grow so significantly even in a shrinking economy.
As far as #1 goes, I don't envision a national health care system that subsidizes poor choices. Nor do I think that everyone's health care should be the same. If you are able to afford more (better doctors, better plans, etc...) you should certainly get it. I also believe that healtchcare costs should be tied to lifestyle and risk factors anyway, whether a public or private system.
The national health care I envision is a certain minimum level of care for those who currently can't afford insurance on their own. So that they are not turned away from emergency rooms for lack of insurance. And kids are able to see a doctor for a general checkup once a year. I don't think everyone should be getting health care with all the bells and whistles. But I don't mind paying for everyone to get something.
To a certain extent yes, but seeing as how the whole bill is in limbo, there's no telling what will be in the final iteration. Under it's current form somebody cannot walk in and just get an abortion on the tax payer on a whim. However, with the absolute fucking morons who are working on this bill, by the time they are done, they may require abortions so they can sell the fetuses for use in hair care products and cooking oils. This I would not put past the unholy trinity and their undying love of abortion.
This explains it well.... Currently "Family planning" and Planned Parenthood are covered under the umbrella, but again the final draft of this thing is far from being done. Who knows what will be in it. My suspicions is that these people drafting the bill are dumber than dried up dogshit and what ever they come up with will be worse than what we have. I think if abortion is covered in any broad sense, this bill will be defeated. It's to hot a topic to just tell the public that their asses have to pay for abortions whether they like it or not.