Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

So is that how you would like your life managed? Oversight, given a dwelling to meet your family size, sustenance to match what your unit should get, no extra! Are you asking those in the medical field to work and be compensated just what they need and nothing more/extra? Like it or not Profits however "large or small" filter down to us all when we perform labor, why should you expect anyone to accept nothing extra when you wouldn't yourself.

 

And all such comparison are frought with folly. Such as hidden cost in socialized medicine, how we attempt tk save more premies which then count as a born baby which died which in ither countries count as a miscarriage and other such anamolies.

What is the answer? We all don't want a VA type system.

 

Yes, in legally billions of examples the government cannot compete with the private sector. I simply asked you if you could think of 1 instance in which the government was more efficient outside of the distribution of scarce resources. You see, the entirety of the world runs on my statement. You are making the counter assumption, and I am asking why?

 

Perhaps we don't see what other nations have done as an acceptable product.

 

Guys like me are asking for an example of it happening. We already have thousands of examples of it not happening. You ever wonder why the government doesn't even make its own military weapons for just one example?

 

I never said that medical personnel work for free or work for a fixed amount.

I said the payer system should be run like a non-profit organization.

Big difference.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say...... I am speaking of Residency like IM or Peds or Orthopedics etc.

 

It isn't a threat. It's a paradigm change to how services are delivered, and insinuates government in a viable market instead of allowing the market to drive usage. I would point out that the inefficiency is generated by the inputs of government, not the market today, and the liability to legal action government has ascribed to the practice. If you don't like the performance, getting government out of the practice is likely to return better results than more of it.

 

The move to employer based total health insurance was a result of government intervention into the labor market .

 

So cranky today. Bad coffee? Too much rain?

 

The corporate giants bought up HUNDREDS and closed them.. And you are right about equipment and staffing.

 

No, you are not. BECAUSE I AM NOT MAKING THE COUNTER ASSUMPTION.

I am merely asking you about YOUR assumption.

I do not know if the government is able to do things better than the private sector...because they don't compete. I have nothing to compare...and I really do not want to just make stuff up on the issue like some do.

YOU are assuming the private sector does things better.

Why...if you are saying it is something other than something you are asserting just because you feel like it?

 

Uh huh Same old strawman Show me a nation of people other then Americans that live in average homes like four bedroom, three bath with at least two cars, with toys like Harleys, boats, twenty foot campers loaded with every new electronic gadget on the market. Not to mention Bling top of the line clothing, food and entertainment !

These, taken for granted, everyday "THINGS" we own is because we OWN and KEEP more of what we make! Other countries haven't the disposable we have because theirs is funneled in to a social society that sticks a nipple in their mouth cradle to grave! Think they have it grand, look around at the diversity of our populous, sure a lot of immigrants around and dying and breaking laws to get in here and not those wonderful places with universal healthcare

 

I wonder about that also. I suppose it's largely this ingrained pessimism about the government's ability to manage anything. Which is stupid, because the government manages quite a lot of things quite successfully. If it's hampered by anything, it's this destructive partisanship of ours that has politicians unable to do their job because the other party is too busy obstructing and opposing them and won't cooperate sufficiently.

So, we may need a fundamental change in our politics before this thing can work. I dunno.

 

I think it is more insidious than that. It creates dependency. It creates government as the purveyor of health care, the entity that you can't live without. For folks who have had to endure that, it means acceptance of substandard services and no choice. So dependent and inadequate care. Leads to more demand, and more power for those administrating the services. If you have any doubt of this, the Vet Administration is an excellent example of what, likely, government provided health services will look like.

 

Yeah, my impression of it all is that the me-first sociopathic mindset has somehow become mainstream to a certain degree here, probably through the relatively naked capitalism we've enjoyed for so long. What's made us so great economically has made us not so great socially..

 

I didn't either, I asked if you were willing to work for "No Profit", you good with a break even life?

 

By the time the committee finished their public comment sessions, the idea to produce a nuclear weapon had been rejected as too negative without enough potential protective potential. Instead, it was decided that more funding for public television would pacify the public....

 

First of all those "lazy and useless people" don't just magically disappear of fade away if they lose coverage because they cannot afford it. No, no, they linger around (sick and untreated) shopping in the same groceries stores and pumping gas into their cars at the same pumps you do. Some of them might even work in the same office space (although down the ladder a bit) that you do. And eventually they're going to get you sick, but lets skip all that for the moment and consider when they do start dropping off and aren't there to come in to work, now you're doing their job and probably without receiving their salary on top of yours.

 

So how did the entire "Combined" continent of Africa do against that last outbreak of Ebola, get much help from those silly "For Profit" countries? How about HIV, Africa hanging in there financially in the fight, or is her countries still accepting profited monies from those assbackwards for profit nation!

 

So you're suggesting what? Uninsured are the zombie apocalypse we've been hearing about?

 

You can't have it as a stand alone in the US. You can have socialized healthcare but you must also have our current healthcare. The rich, the doctors, the hospitals wont go for socialized healthcare. So we must keep the unaffordable healthcare to make them happy. But we can have socialized healthcare as a 2nd option.

 

I can't believe I have to explain this. I am not suggesting that anyone work for free. I am suggesting doing away with insurance companies and a system that denies or limits insurance coverage in the interest of corporate profit.

Everyone would still be paid, get raises based on merit or time accrued. The directors of large non-profit organizations still get paid 6 and 7 figures based on how well they do their job but there is no group of investors who must also get a dividend check.

It is an organizational change that would simplify and streamline the process of paying for healthcare, not make anyone work for free.

 

As we all saw in WI, when Gov Scott Walker opened up the teachers healthcare insurance market to more than the monopoly Union insurance, the prices dropped dramatically. Even the price for the union insurance went down with competition. That is why having a single payer option is bad, it creates a monopoly.

 

I know right? That slid right in to the realm of ridiculous!