Blog Catalog Discussion: Health Rationing in our Future?

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:27:54 -0500

of course there has to be rules in order to have a sound economy. There may be some confusion about what is regulation and what isn't. more on this later.

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:59:43 -0500

Government Steaks??!!! Now the Gov't owns cows, too??

jeremyjanson on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

jeremyjanson — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:36:31 -0500

@Agit8r: I'm not using Welfare-Statist definition, but rather the nature of the American Federal Reserve, American Education System & Union Closed Shops, which essentially comprise a socialist system. Also, all passenger rail and most mass-transit in the US is government owned and now GM & Chrysler have significant government stakes.

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:02:11 -0500

Eric - what does my view on forms of protest have to do with privatized medical care? Nice dodge of the facts, though. Just face it - privatization and deregulation turns into economic fascism. The rest of the world is evolving into mixed economies that provide various forms of health care to citizens...they are moving away from privatization because they understand the consequences of it.

Agit - not really - actually my point was that privatization of industries such as medical care, education, etc lends itself to economic strangleholds and out and out economic fascism because it is based on profit over people. It's always been based on that, and any industry that operates in such a manner will eventually turn into that. It's my main argument against anarcho-capitalism, actually and my argument against capitalism and privatization in general.

jeremyjanson on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

jeremyjanson — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:14:01 -0500

Aren't two sentences on a piece of paper called the US Federal Statutes simpler then redoing the entire system, Anok?

And further, since when are partisan polticians and the DC machine OF THE PEOPLE?

Further, it is a straw man to claim that because you find creating either a government monopoly, price control, rationing board or effective monopsony on healthcare you therefore believe that the entire system should be run like your husbands business.

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:38:39 -0500

Ihaven't read the latest bill, but all indications point to the 'public option' no longer being on the table. So I'm not sure what is left on the table, but as I said a week or so ago the final bill will be significantly stripped down.

csiunatc on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

csiunatc — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:41:26 -0500

Well BINGO Agit8r.

Yes, regulation needs to be kept to a neccesary level, when the government owns a process, you are fairly helpless against it. (try suing the government...)

That being said, Legislation should be designed so that the fairest system occurs, without that being taken by government.

Opening the limitations on competition (geographic for instance) since competition is a direct countermeasure against price would be a great start. The fact that we allow limitations on competition right now is oen of the biggest injustices that exist in the current system. Another is that companies can deduct the cost from taxes, but private parties can't. These are the things that would dramatically lower the cost of healthcare.

This is the problem at large. IF you have a gov't owned system that fails and produces worse care over all, even if it does give it to more people. You end up with an even bigger difference between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy, even where private options aren't available are able to travel to get care.

For instance, Sweden right now are huge customers of Polish Private doctors, because their costs are lower, and most of them are educated in Sweden and neighboring countries anyway.

There's even travelcompanies that set everything up for you. HOtels, Dental, Medical, Plastic surgery, all can be taken care of in one nice package "vacation" and done immediately as opposed to wait for extended peiods of time.

This of course is not "CHEAP" although much less expensive than the completely private options in Sweden unless you have the private insurance.

So, the wealthy get top care IN sweden, The upper part of the middle class travel to get care.

The lower income levels are stuck waiting for care that may very well not arrive in time.

This is NOT a fair system that takes care of the poor. It just masquerades as one.

Now, OBama keeps talking abotu 46million uninsured. How does anyone suggest squeezing them in without causing waits?

And as far as the gov't deciding if you should get care or not, that is also a rampant problem in other countries, Where gov't employed doctors who have never met a patient unilaterally overrides the attending physicians recommendations, based only on medical journals and charts.

And again, You can't sue the gov't very easily...

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:24:08 -0500

if I understand correctly, the point seems to be, that when you replace the government with a marketplace, the result is the same as any corrupt bribe-driven foriegn government... or maybe that is just me editorializing off topic, idk

It seems to me that there are some functions uniquely suited to a marketplace. the buying and selling of goods and most services seems to me to fit into this category. In such a system, individuals striving competitively produce the best--or most just--result.

In any realm where competitivness produces a worse result or causes injustice, there is reason for either regulation or some form of services being taken over by government. It is my view that the latter case ought to be a last resort, in that government providing a good or service is by nature a monopoly and will tend--if not kept in check by public vigilence--toward producing injustice of its own. The act of regulation upon a corporate or private entity should be done only as it is necessitized by a want of justice, and is in almost all cases preferrable to government monopoly, as the governmental function of providing a check upon power is more suited to an external body than itself.

csiunatc on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

csiunatc — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:40:40 -0500

You tell me, you're the one that thinks violent protest is a reasonable way to show you don't like a politican party...

So you are saying, that a foreign government not working after what you'd like it to do proves that the US Healthcare system doesn't work.

Talk about not seeing clearly.

He fell.. did you hit your head in the process?

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:48:08 -0500

Eric, I know you fail to see the point. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to admit what de and unregulation in industries such as this actually does (besides make gobs of money for CEO's).

It's not a secret place, it is not on US soil, and therefore does NOT have to abide by our regulations. it is privatized, completely, and unregulated. That is what the end result is of deregulated, and unregulated free market economies. that is the reality. It is a real example, unlike your constant nagging about the mixed economies with some form of socialized, single payer, or government option industries.

Willful ignorance is par for the course, though.... as is the rest of your comment. Completely devoid of actual facts of how things are run here.

tell me, is it really that easy to navigate through life with such tight blinders on?

csiunatc on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

csiunatc — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:43:59 -0500

Anok,

1. To use completely unregulated as some alternative to what we are getting rammed down our throats now is ridiculous. No one has asked for that or is promoting a fully unregulated health care system.

To make comparison is a straw man at best. But there are better descriptions i'd prefer to use for it. Pathetic attempt to make a point would be one of them.

Whatever secret place this was, obviously aren't following the rules of the U.S. Legal or not. I still fail to see what this comparison has to do with anything.

You are discussing a severe anomaly from everything, and completely ignoring the real facts that are commonplace with countries that have gov't healthcare.. Waitlines, and what this thread is about, rationing. Which is rampant in every country I know of that has gov't healthcare.

In short, if this anomaly is your best argument against, then the norm seems to be working just fine.

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:56:36 -0500

If I understand correctly, Democratic Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production/major services/utilities are predominantly run by the state. Instances that fall into this group would seem to be rather an exeption. Unless we are speaking of the broad definition of welfare-statism, which in itelf is hardly unique to DS.

The planned nature of the bulk of agricultural production is typically still run through a framework of private or corporate ownership, thus falling more into the mercantilist category.

jeremyjanson on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

jeremyjanson — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:51:18 -0500

@Agit8r: US would be a little more mixed then that. Laissez-faire and mercantilist would certainly exist, but democratic socialist and legalist themes would exist as well, especially at the state level, with the DS being concentrated in the Midwest, Northeast, and California, and the legalist being concentrated in more liberal areas out west like Washington state (more irony, 1200-page Land Use Laws & 9th Largest Rodeo in SAME STATE.)

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:46:47 -0500

I think you should ask Obama to send Biden in on your behalf. No wait. I that would make things worse. :P

clioandme on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

clioandme — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:26:09 -0500

Total lack of regulation (read: rules) is always extreme.

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:23:51 -0500

Antics - aside from privacy, the matter is not yet settled, so you know, for legal reasons (I'm always careful about that) I'm trying to get around naming and too many specifics :(

Eric - free market, no government regulation. Is it an extreme example? Sure, but it's a real one - the fact of the matter is that this is what happens in privatized, un/de-regulated markets particularly in the arena of industries people need to survive. It 'ends itself to this sort of abuse all too easily - it's happening right here, right now.

I know it shatters ideologies that free market is awesome - but it is what it is.

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:28:24 -0500

maybe nobody is talking about ZERO regulation, but certainly one side of the debate wants less accountability for doctors.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/healthcare-reform-plans-are-like-ssholes

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:42:58 -0500

I think we could appreciate the situation more if we knew where this happened. That would shine a whole new light on your predicament. As I said though, I understand your need for privacy.

csiunatc on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

csiunatc — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:34:32 -0500

What a useless side argument.

NO ONE has seriuosly been talking about zero regulation health care. So i still fail to see what this has to do with ANYTHING remotely relevant.

The only thing left to do is wonder about the sanity of someone entering an area where they have no protection and no rights. Seems borderline self-destructive to me.

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:24:03 -0500

Okay, that is clear as mud. :P lol, but I think I understand what you are saying. Or at least I have better view of it, anyway. I hope you the best, and I am a pretty good researcher, if I can help, let me know. :)

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:46:06 -0500

Antics - no there's no embassy, and while they do have their own laws, per se, they generally circle the wagons when anyone tries to hold them accountable for anything. (There is no opposing representation sort of thing available). But honestly it's not a problem with the health care, or the insurance - it's just how things work when there are no regulations and everything is for profit. It's just how it works there, which is why I used it as an example for my argument against such a system.

It lends itself to financial tyranny far too easily.

Oh, sorry I didn't answer your first question - my husband was on the grounds doing promotional work for his company. The two are not related, and the events are after normal operating hours (for his company). The only thing his boss did/could do was pick up the company vehicle and property which was left on the premises.

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:14:54 -0500

Anok...is the company your hubby works for a health care company? Or are they sending him to the facilities that their risk insurance (workman's comp) tells them to use?

I feel for you in this situation, but - and I understand your need for privacy - not enough is known about the situation to say whether it is a problem with health care, their insurance, your insurance or with whatever jurisdiction's regulations must be followed. You say it is not on U.S. soil, so that means there is another set of laws in place. You more than likely can find some recourse on this one. If it is on foreign soil, can you go to the United States' Embassy?

clioandme on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

clioandme — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:30:14 -0500

Ah, the "free" market. I guess here that means that the company gets something for nothing.

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:27:01 -0500

Eric it was a pure example of no regulation, which is the basis of a free market economy. The fact that it is on non US soil makes no difference in the exercise, as it is a prime example of how corporations in "free markets" actually work.

As it turns out, it's anything but free.

Mark - the bill is perfectly legal, as it's a bill for services rendered. It's par for the course there for that sort of thing to happen. They also ship in immigrants (n waves) and pay them less than minimum wage along with firing union organizers so they can continue to pay low wages to various jobs. They're making out like a bandit - the workers and surrounding areas? Not so much.

Hell, they don't even pay competitive wages for the skilled professional jobs. It's a solid drop in pay compared to other companies. And yet - they're still making money hand over fist....

clioandme on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

clioandme — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:59:19 -0500

If it happened in the US and is legal, it is per definition part of the US system.

csiunatc on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

csiunatc — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:56:54 -0500

Lets see, you are using a company that doesn't have to follow US laws and accept US insurance to prove how the US system doesn't work?

Great example...

clioandme on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

clioandme — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:26:11 -0500

Sounds like the days of those company shops.

The problem with most right-wing rhetoric is they assume that "free" means "no government." "Free markets" in their idiom means "unregulated markets." But, as you point out, unregulated markets can create monopoly situations.

If we want to be good free market people, I mean really free market, we'd have to have a market where freedom lies not only with the provider, but also the consumer.

The conservatives are dealing in false dichotomies that only have value in their simplistic ideology, not the real world. Makes it tiresome to argue with.

Still wondering how legal that bill is. Maybe it would be illegal in that company's country? Of course, for $600, who's got the energy to find out?

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:13:50 -0500

It's interesting what rhetoric was thrown around about healthcare during the early 60's

"This bill serves the public interest. It involves the Government because it involves the public welfare. The Constitution of the United States did not make the President or the Congress powerless. It gave them definite responsibilities to advance the general welfare--and that is what we're attempting to do.

And then I read that this bill will sap the individual self-reliance of Americans. I can't imagine anything worse, or anything better, to sap someone's self-reliance, than to be sick, alone, broke--or to have saved for a lifetime and put it out in a week, two weeks, a month, two months."

-- John F. Kennedy; Medicare rally, May 20, 1962

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8669

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:16:26 -0500

OK so this is me, hijacking Antic's thread Muwahahahahaha...

I'm going to use our recent brush with the health care industry to illustrate why privatized health care is the worst idea possible for people. Now, our recent experience (last week) dealt with a peculiar little area where we live - and it is the perfect example of the problems with a true free market/privatization of industries such as health care. How is this possible? Well, my husband was working (off site) for a company that does not technically reside on US soil. They do not have to follow US rules and regulations - and are under no obligation to follow typical US proceedures. Although they do at times pick and choose which laws they would like to abide by in the spirit of cooperation - they do not have to. What does this mean?

It means that all services they provide, and all incidents on their soil (they are completely self sufficient) are completely free of US legislation - that includes businesses so it is the perfect example of a completely unregulated market. So here's the story:

My husband is working, he slips on a hazard and gets seriously injured. Several other people had also slipped ons aid hazard, and were injured, yet nothing was done to clean up said hazard, or to prevent any further injury. In the US, this is called negligence. So he slipped, and the company called their own ambulance company to pick hi up and transport him the whole ten minutes to the hospital for x-rays and to make sure he didn't break his neck. My husband had no choice but to use their services (and even if he was capable of making his own decisions at that moment, they still must use their in house services as determined by their company - not by any laws).

Sounds OK so far, right? Well yesterday we had the bombshell dropped on us that because he got hurt on their property, because of their negligence, and was forced to use their ambulance, we must pay them $600. WHAT?!

Yeah - and get this - they don't have to honor any insurance they don't want to - so they will not accept our insurance. Now here's the big kicker - there aint no laws to use to fight this! We can try, but so far no lawyer is willing to take the case because A)They don't have to follow US laws, which changes the game and B) They simply have too much money power, and attorneys to deal with. SO no one will touch it because they're all certain that nothing will come of it, anyway.

So here we have a company - completely unregulated, 100% privatized, who force people into using their services which are phenominally expensive ($600 for an ambulance ride? Public fire departments here charge $400, and accept insurance), won't take insurance, and can't be fought in court.

Oh, and they don't have to compete because guess what - they tell you what you are going to do, and forbid people from using other services while on their property. They have, in other words, a monopoly.

This is the problem with privatized care AND free market ideology. Can you imagine if our entire health care system turned into that? Just like this place - which is surrounded by plenty of other public and private ambulance companies - the notion of "competition" driving down costs and upping care is a quaint but antiquated ideology. It's never worked, and it's even worse now. (We had unregulated markets prior to the great depression, and we were rife with monopolies, human rights abuses, and financial coercion).

They have "competition" however they control what you do on their properties. The person making the emergency call gets to contact whomever they please, and if they work for so-and-so company, that's who they're gonna call. It's a nice way to make a buck, right? I mean my husbands only other option was to continue laying there on the ground, hoping a good samaritan would take him to a hospital.

And now we're being soaked for an ambulance ride that wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't been negligent - and have zero legal recourse.

Privatization is only beneficial to the companies - it is not beneficial for PEOPLE.

Our experience with this has confirmed for me the need for a public option or the eradication of privatized for-profit health industries all together.

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:55:33 -0500

Ah, gotchya. It does seem odd, though that they would offer even mild support when not that long ago they campaigned against such proposals, doesn't it?

Of course I'm sure some doctors will be unhappy if their pay were to be cut or stifled. Then again there are a lot more people out there who are even angrier that they can't afford doctor's rates - so really, something is going to have to give at some point. SOmeone is going to give something up - so far it's been patients giving up money and/or medical care. Now it's the doctor's turn :P

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 09:44:38 -0500

Hijack away, my favorite anarchist. :P

But I was listening to Mark Levin's radio show the other day and an MD called in. He said that he called to quit the AMA because they had voiced support for H.R. 3200 which, among many, many other things, severely limits physicians' pay. He said that when he asked his person at the AMA why they support this, their answer was (paraphrasing), "We want to have a seat at the table." To me that translates to the thug tactics the WH used on the car companies and their investors. So that is why I used the term "thrown in."

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:14:11 -0500

It would seem then, that the AMA has changed their opinions a bit, no? (When you say "thrown in, I'm interpretating that as support).

I wonder what caused the change.

I have a current gripe about privatized medical care, but no time to tell it now. I'm wondering if it should be another thread, or if I should hijack you already long thread?

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:33:03 -0500

China is a good example because it calls itself communist but is really a mercantilist economy. Ironically it was such a system that Marx referred to as "capitalist"

What is now called capitalism in the U.S. is a sort of middle way between mercantilism and laissez-faire. It is ostensibly unplanned per se, but governments still make who-for-whom decisions as to whose property/tax dollars etc. will be given to whom.

jeremyjanson on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

jeremyjanson — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:16:26 -0500

@Agit8r: Yeah, I like the term "planned economy" too and would also include Feudalism and Caste Systems under that header as well. But the Communist Manifesto's basic themes' contributed to the growth of all left-wing societies both democratic and totalitarian. "Planned economy" doesn't neccesarily mean left-wing, although right-wing in the modern Anglo-Sino-American sense would tend to be against it. There are also feudal and mercantile states which don't really fit on the left-right spectrum.

Agit8r on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Agit8r — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:47:13 -0500

there has never actually been a communist government per se, in that communism in theory is a stateless society. Those governments that have been called communist, or which are ruled by a communist party are/were actually totalitarian socialist regimes.

I like to use the term "planned economy" (a Hayekian term) because it encompasses mercantilism as well :)

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:16:19 -0500

I stumbled upon this 1961 speech on socialized medicine. Here is a snippet of it.

"Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another."

Too bad our current President couldn't say something positive about our health care system instead of always talking it down as the worst in the world.

"But let's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it's like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theatre. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."

Awesome speech by the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

The interesting thing about this speech is that it was a 10 minute speech on a vinyl record. Copies were passed out by the AMA in their effort to defeat socialized medicine. Yes the same AMA who has recently thrown in with Obama and his desire for socialized medicine.

jeremyjanson on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

jeremyjanson — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:30:20 -0500

@MS: Liberalism is a socialist doctrine, as anyone who has ever read the Communist Manifesto knows. As for the freedom stuff, people can talk their way in to or out of anything. They can believe in individualism and tell everybody but them to be collectivist - pretty much sums up the state of California and the entire West Coast of the United States.

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:02:23 -0500

lol, replace that ninja mask with a paper bag and you are the unknown ninja comic....er something like that. :D

Anok on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

Anok — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:59:44 -0500

Well, one could argue that all political systems are cut from a similar cloth, it's just a matter of degrees.

I'll probably mess this up, but there's a saying:

"What's the difference between Socialism and Democracy?

About 9 people."

:D

anticsrocks on 'Health Rationing in our Future?'

anticsrocks — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:29:59 -0500

@csi...it is always okay, as long as you agree with mark.

@Anok...well, one could argue that communism and socialism are of the same ilk, just differing degrees.