Author Topic: The $%*! frustration thread  (Read 472986 times)

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4500 on: November 08, 2009, 08:05:30 pm »
Yes, it was a true act of bipartisanship and two-party compromise.

One Republican voted for the bill.

Ugh. I'm in agreement with FW; I simply just want to highlight that 1) Republicans are the ones not playing the bipartisan game (the party of No, as it were), and 2) the Democratic party is full of southerner dumbfucks, Dixiecrats, and Blue Dogs who aren't true progressives.

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4501 on: November 08, 2009, 09:34:50 pm »
Yes, it was a true act of bipartisanship and two-party compromise.

One Republican voted for the bill.

Ugh. I'm in agreement with FW; I simply just want to highlight that 1) Republicans are the ones not playing the bipartisan game (the party of No, as it were), and 2) the Democratic party is full of southerner dumbfucks, Dixiecrats, and Blue Dogs who aren't true progressives.

So then, the abortion thing was unnecessary to get it passed? In that case, fuck you twice to everyone who voted for amendment: Once for being a misogynist and twice for the Democrat that proposed it for being a coward and the Republicans who voted against the health care bill it for baiting the amendment. Each and every person who voted for that amendment should be thrown out on their assess. Life saving procedures being bared from coverage? Fuck that.

Everyone who voted for the amendment should be stripped of their socialist health care, be denied coverage from any private insurance health care system (including through spouses) and be denied access to all medical care, even if they have the money for it. Not a fucking aspirin from the store. Let them die in the streets, and string up their carcasses to serve as a reminder that you can't take a stand against health care for the very people who pay for yours.

I'm frustrated that we live in a country that is filled with so many backwards anti-environment, anti-human, anti-life, sadistic misogynists that such an amendment could even be proposed. It's inexcusable and unforgivable.

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4502 on: November 09, 2009, 12:55:34 am »

Well, with all the committees and subcommittees and reviews and riders and a do-next-to-nothing congress, I'm surprised that anything actually beneficial to our American society gets through.

As for socialist health care, I'm in favor of private health care over national health care.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4503 on: November 09, 2009, 01:11:51 am »

Well, with all the committees and subcommittees and reviews and riders and a do-next-to-nothing congress, I'm surprised that anything actually beneficial to our American society gets through.

As for socialist health care, I'm in favor of private health care over national health care.

You have been getting more and more like Truthordeal in your posts. Now I think you are beginning to exceed him in cockamamie ignorance. Usually I can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about. But when it's an issue like healthcare reform, which I've spent hundreds of hours following this year, it just stands out all the more glaringly when somebody comes along and proclaims, while drooling from the mouth, such ridiculous bunk as that.

There may or may not be any good arguments in favor of private healthcare over public healthcare, but you wouldn't know, would you?

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4504 on: November 09, 2009, 09:00:01 am »
My frustration is that it seems to be taking so much effort, with seemingly half the country kicking and screaming like toddlers, to give some level of health care to those who don't have it.  My god.  These idiots fight so hard for the unborn and its "right to life", but then as soon as the damn creature sees the light, they back the fuck off and say "you are on your own!".

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4505 on: November 09, 2009, 10:33:48 am »
Around 4 years ago, the city I live in started renovation on a major road that was the primary route for individuals attempting to reach four different hospitals. First, the tore up the middle two lanes and spent about 2 years fixing that. Then, they tore up one side and took about a year fixing that. Then they tore up the other side, spent a year fixing that. Given that everything is fixed and renovated at this point one would think that they'd be done and open the road up again. Alas, one would think wrong. They have begun re-renovation on the middle two lanes again. Why? Because in their piece-meal approach, they forgot that all the lanes actually need to be level with each other. Those middle lanes are at least a full foot, maybe two, higher than the other lanes.

At least living in Texas will make me feel more appreciative of competent government elsewhere; because compared to Texas, almost any government is competent.

As for socialist health care, I'm in favor of private health care over national health care.

Why? Private healthcare is a unique business in that the service you pay for is one that either you never receive, or if you receive, it will be as craptacular as the company can possibly manage. Imagine if you went to a restaurant, paid for a meal, but 95% of the time you never got it. On the 5% that you did, the waiters were rude, the food itself was barely palatable, and they blacklisted you afterwards. How does a business model like that garner any support?

Health care is essentially a natural monopoly (to use the phrase loosely), and all natural monopolies belong in the hands of the government, not private industry.

If private insurance companies had at least helped keep costs down, then there might be an argument for keeping them, but they have failed miserably at that. There is no use to them.

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4506 on: November 09, 2009, 03:48:48 pm »

Well, I appreciate your forthrightness, Lord J, but I'd rather not have universal health care.  The cons far outweigh the pros.  Like the idiom "hit the ground running", it may sound like a good idea in theory, but not in practice.  Take your pick.  I'm not as ignorant as you like to picture me as through my posts.

(Courtesy of BalancedPolitics.org)

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently.

At least try and name one government office that runs efficiently.  The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can.

How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide," and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians intervene with something that should be simple.

Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science—they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would either go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes.

There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care, but the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

3. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility.  After all, if our government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding.

Example--> Would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and Lasik eye surgery be covered? One may say, “That's easy.  Make patients pay for elective surgery.”

Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up—politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

4. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free.

Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't.

Example--> What if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

I’ve said it before in previous posts and I’ll say it again: The most effective health care for anybody is (and really, it’s no secret) not to get sick in the first place.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care.

Non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance.

While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant. Furthermore, non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

When our government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care. 

Over in the U.K., where they  do have universal health care, doctors go on strike because they are not getting paid bonuses or overtime for the exorbitant amounts of patient care that they have to deal with, and that’s just one side effect of implementing such health care reform.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes.

Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?  It’s a pretty backwards concept having to have healthy patients give their tax dollars to some John Doe who doesn’t give a crap about how he lives his life and who’s paying for his gastric bypass or liposuction.

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

A universal health care plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary.

All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

Who would’ve guessed that unemployment would be the cost of reform?

 10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.



This is by no means a complete list, but it’s a far cry from what you called cockamamie ignorance, Lord J. 

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4507 on: November 09, 2009, 04:35:20 pm »
Hmmm...looking at the site you cited(pun? Nah) there certainly appears to be more cons than pros. It's a decent website, from what I can tell of it, so it might be worth a look into. However, the quality of an argument often outweighs the quantity of it.

For instance, if I were to argue that bananas are better than apples, my reasoning would look something like this:

1) Bananas taste better.

2) Bananas are yellow.

3) Bananas contain all of the nutrients of apples, plus potassium, which apples lack.

4) Bananas are sweeter.

The first two arguments are pretty much useless, because people's tastes change and the fact that bananas are yellow makes no difference to most people. The fourth argument is more or less a restatement of the first argument, but it can appear on its own with its own justification as well. The third argument is the only decent one, because it uses factual information and applies it to a persons interest(health, in this case).

I could do a much deeper analysis of this site, but I have a research paper to do, so that'll have to wait.

I will answer the first point of your argument, however, with NASA. It started in the fifties and got a man on the moon by 1969, with less money than was spent on the past two stimulus bills. Of course, comparing this to health care might prove to be a false analogy, as the economics of medicine seems to be far more complicated than rocket science.  :lol:

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4508 on: November 09, 2009, 05:04:12 pm »
1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently.

Perhaps, but allow me to turn this issue upon private industry. Is there a single private health insurance company, in the world, that is efficient in regards to providing patient care? There are companies that have shown that they are very efficient in reducing costs to themselves, but medical costs and patient care in general are significantly lagging. Indeed, there is evidence that private health insurance companies are partially responsible for the rising cost of patient care through their own attempt to shore up their own obscene profits. Remember 2008, when the economy was crashing? Yeah, health insurance companies were doing just fine, thank you very much. And by “just fine,” I mean “Enron-would-blush fine.”

However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line?

False assumption. Wait time does not necessarily say anything about efficiency: a single efficient worker can still be very easily overworked, acquiring a backlog. You may be mistaking underfunding for inefficiency. You may not here be mistaken, but this is not a valid criterion without supplemental arguments.

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes.

So? Would paying for health care through taxes be inherently worse than an employer taking money out of your paycheck to buy the health care?

3. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

Perhaps. However, you are oversimplifying things. Currently, there are health insurance plans that will allow you to see Cardiologist A but not Cardiologist B. Under a government plan, both would be available to you. That is increased flexibility.

Private insurance companies do not cover elective surgeries in the present day, therefore your example applies to them as well as government based insurance. You would need to show that the government would allow for fewer elective surgeries than present coverage.

Decisions will most likely be made in both instances by bureaucrats rather than doctors.

Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle.

Currently, every medical procedure and situation is an economic battle; would political battles be much different?

4. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

The evidence does not conform to your statement. Please list a single private health insurance company that has routinely implemented cost-controls and effectiveness protocols that did not aversely influence patient care.

Government workers have fewer incentives to do well.

They also have fewer reasons to screw the customer over. They aren’t rewarded for cutting costs, which are most easily done by cutting patient care.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free.

The co-pay is ineffective for this as it is. However, if people are more likely to go to a doctor for every ache and pain, then perhaps we'll start catching illness early, when treatment is very affordable. Preventative care is good.

Example--> What if a patient is having trouble sleeping?

Could be sleep apnea, a fully treatable disorder. As sleep deprivation can lead to impaired judgment and voting Democrat (or Republican, depending on your party), which can in turn hurt others, this is something that it is better to be safe than sorry. I’d rather the government waste money that have unsafe drivers on the road or half-asleep voters in the booths.

...however, if everything is free, why not go?

Everything won’t be free, however. No matter what the government does, it will still cost time (and resources to get there). Those expenses have always outweighed the co-pays for many people.

The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait.

If only there were rooms where people with emergencies could go. Of course, if there were these "Where-people-with-serious-and-urgent-problems-go-for-quick-treatment Rooms," we'd want to be sure that they weren't crowded by people with colds, headaches, etc. The easiest way to do that would be to give these common folk health insurance so they could go see a regular doctor.

The most effective health care for anybody is (and really, it’s no secret) not to get sick in the first place.

Preventative care, which requires a social change, would be good, but neither private health insurance companies nor the government based proposals address it. That makes this a red herring.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care.

Just because uninsured Americans receive health care, that doesn't mean that they care is adequate or timely. Usually when people take advantage of the non-insurance options, it costs much more to treat.

Non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance.

And so your objection is that government health insurance is unnecessary because the uninsured can benefit from what is effectively government health insurance in the first place?

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

Reduce doctor flexibility from an otherworldly ideal, yes. But for this argument to work, you would need to show that government-mandated procedures would reduce doctor flexibility and reduce patient care more than those mandates already in place by health insurance companies.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

That is already how the system is. Health insurance companies make money off the health individuals and cut loose the sick ones as soon as they can. The government picks up the rest, with tax dollars.

To note, being obese, if it is a health risk, is usually a symptom of other problems: it is rarely a problem itself. Think of it like hives. If you have hives that doesn't mean you are more likely to be allergic to something, but if you are allergic to something, you are more likely to have hives. Obesity is usually a symptom, not a cause.

Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair.

Ah, curse public education, roadways, sanitation, water and power lines, police, firefighters, and military service. Curse those fundamentally unfair institutions, I say!

Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes.

Your health is also greatly determined by your genetic makeup. It is estimated that 50-80% of a person's weight is directly influenced by their genes. Blacks and Hispanics are more prone to diabetes than whites. Cancers are also significantly influenced by your DNA, as is addiction. Nurture certainly plays an important role, but nature is no small thing either.

Chances are, you are carrying genes in you right now that predispose you to serious illness later in life. You can thank President Bush and GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) that these can't be used against you to deny you health insurance coverage, employment, etc.

It’s a pretty backwards concept having to have healthy patients give their tax dollars to some John Doe who doesn’t give a crap about how he lives his life and who’s paying for his gastric bypass or liposuction.

Well you're just being an ass now. Considering the hell that that bariatric surgery entails, no one even thinks about having gastric bypass without giving more of a crap about their health than most healthy individuals.

Sure, let’s damn them because their bodies are leptin resistant. Let’s damn them because they have efficient metabolisms that are evolutionary advantageous to almost any environment but the modern western one. Let’s damn them because their mothers ate too much ice cream while pregnant with them.

You are just being bigoted here, plain and simple. There is a perception that overweight individuals are lazy, that if they just wanted to they could be healthy. It is true that there are some people who are thin because they work out, and others are fat because they are lazy, but it is also true that there are some humans who are tetrachromatic (they can see four wavelengths of color, rather than the standard three). Point being, this is incredibly rare. This isn't to say that individuals can't affect their health, but that overweight individuals tend to do more about their health than "normal" individuals. Unfortunately, the anti-fat bigotry that permeates society actually prevents overweight individuals from seeking preemptive medical help due to social stigmas. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that it is easier for an individual to grow up homosexual than it is to grow up fat.

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

A universal health care plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary.

It already is unnecessary. Society just likes to pretend it isn't.
As for the painful transition; curiously, treatment for diseases is often painful. But if good and proper, that doesn’t mean you should avoid it.

10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Perhaps, but the best doctors are never the ones that enter for the money. If we lowered the costs of medical school (something that is, admittedly, not part of the current debate, but an element of the larger social need for across the board health reforms), so that doctors didn't graduate with horrendous debt that necessitated unethically-large salaries, we might also be able to recruit more doctors from underprivileged classes.

Shee

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 942
  • Sheeeeeeit
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4509 on: November 09, 2009, 05:33:37 pm »
Hard drive crashed.  That means all of tunes will have to be reorganized (more of a pain than anything) and a few other things will be lost.  This includes my headshots, which are kind of vital, so I need to find the CD which they were on, which I haven't needed in ages.  Also, ALL of my work (which was really just a newfound hobby) from The Program That Must Not Be Named is gone.  All of it.  I just now realized how much I had.  And this hardrive was less than a year old!!!!   Baaaaaahhhhh rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

Good news is I had 4 days left on my warranty so I gets a new one in the mail.

Hopefully I won't be posting about the mail come next week...

ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4510 on: November 09, 2009, 06:26:14 pm »
Quote
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

This study refutes that notion:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

People who are obese rack up medical costs, sure. But they die earlier than healthy people do. Healthy people live long enough to develop cancer and other diseases of long life, which rack up equivalent medical costs. Ultimately, unhealthy people who die earlier and healthy people who die later cost about the same.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4511 on: November 09, 2009, 06:43:39 pm »
Well, I appreciate your forthrightness, Lord J, but I'd rather not have universal health care.  The cons far outweigh the pros.  Like the idiom "hit the ground running", it may sound like a good idea in theory, but not in practice.  Take your pick.  I'm not as ignorant as you like to picture me as through my posts.

My first objection is that you have resorted to copying the words of other people to make your point. Very few of the words in your remaining post are actually your own. That shows intellectual irresponsibility. You can certainly use other people's words, but only if you're able to analyze and express them with your own understanding. Copying does not demonstrate your grasp of the issues. It demonstrates, on the contrary, your consent to being defined by the statements of others. Is that what you are? A minion?

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently.

At least try and name one government office that runs efficiently.  The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can.

How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide," and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians intervene with something that should be simple.

Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science—they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would either go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

There's some room to quibble over what "efficiency" means, but the only way you can defensibly claim that the government doesn't run efficiently is if you define "efficiency" to mean "makes a direct profit," which isn't applicable in the government's case. For what they are tasked to do, the NIH, the NPS, the OSHA, the FHA, the FSA (Federal Student Aid), the USPS, the FSIS, the NWS, and the NOAA are all examples of government offices that run efficiently by my standards--which is particularly remarkable because many of them are severely underfunded at present. I picked these particular offices, by the way, because I have personally interacted with them in one way or another and have benefited firsthand from the work they do. Are you really prepared to argue against any of these organizations? Do you even know what the acronyms stand for? And what about local government? Are you going to argue against that too?

This is what happens when students are not taught civics, and are instead indoctrinated to believe that the government is a big corporation and ought to be run like one. Bull. Shit.

I'll agree with you--or, ahem: I'll agree with the website you copied from--that the tax code needs to be streamlined. I agree with that statement completely. But by "streamlined" I don't mean "We need to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment," and I detect a false equivalency coming from you by which tax code simplification is a stand-in for lower taxation overall. Not only is that a false equivalency, but it is wrong on its face: Some complexity in the tax code is necessary; you would know this if you've ever had to complete your own tax returns. It's easy to see how many of the questions are important for revenue collection purposes, even if not relevant to you personally. There are many useful provisions in the tax code that nevertheless contribute to the code's overall length.

Lastly, the DMV is not a federal office. We don't even have a DMV in Washington State. (It's the DOL.) To the extent there are long lines, it's because these agencies don't have the budget necessary to hire more people. That's not their fault; it's not a measure of their ability to perform the organizational tasks that any organization must. It's simply a reality of the budgeting process. They don't collect operating revenues directly from citizens. They have to make do with the funding they are given. In any case, the lines may be long sometimes, but the agency works. If you want shorter lines, you'll have to pay for it, or give up something else.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post in such detail, as I simply don't have the time to compose my own thoughts in response to your thoughtless pasting of somebody else's arguments...so forgive me if the rest seems rushed.

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes.

There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care, but the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?

Here's a definition of efficiency that may not have occurred to a "libertarian" such as yourself: Efficiency is when an organization offers a good service at a reasonable price. Private healthcare providers in America today accomplish neither. Insurance policies are becoming junkier by the year, and more expensive by the year. This isn't merely a case of corporate greed, although there is plenty of that. We we are seeing is the failure of an economic model in miniature. Private healthcare in a modern society just doesn't work. The drugs and technologies and doctors required to preserve and promote the health of an increasingly long-lived population are not cheap. Healthcare costs money. Skimming a profit off the top just makes the costs even worse. It's not a profitable sector. I was reading up on this earlier in the year, and the closest I found to a private model that even remotely works is that in the nation of Switzerland--and even there the basic healthcare plan is not allowed to be for-profit.

Public healthcare offers three advantages that private healthcare will not: First, there will be greater economies of scale. Second, there will be no profit skimmed off the top. Third, there will be superior organization. The first two of those advantages are not controversial. The third is, since right-wingers have buttered their bread for decades by claiming that government doesn't work and never solves anything. In reality, the current private health insurance companies in America do not compare favorably at all to the public insurers. I don't know if you've been paying attention--probably not--but private healthcare in this country isn't exactly working out.

Before we move on, let me reiterate this: I don't think you understand civics very well at all. Your idea that public services and infrastructure are all some big gigantic cheat because it's not "free" since we all pay taxes is despairingly ignorant. Your (forgive me) moronic grasp of government is about in line with what I would expect from a rigid adherent of the intellectually rotted conservative movement. I'm not sure whether to be sad or disgusted. Sad, I think.

3. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility.  After all, if our government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding.

Example--> Would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and Lasik eye surgery be covered? One may say, “That's easy.  Make patients pay for elective surgery.”

Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up—politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

Heh. I imagine I must know one part of what it is like to be a police officer. Police officers see the same crimes over and over. Every perpetrator thinks they're going to be the one to get away with it. Every perp thinks they know best. There are a lot of ignorant people out there. When it comes to politics, there are all sorts of folks who have no idea what they're talking about. They just get their opinions from somebody else and couldn't give two shits about fact or reason. And then, sometimes, they come up against somebody like me...who knows the issues. And they think this time will be no different: They'll spout their opinion and that will be the end of it. It never even occurs to them that they might be called out for total bunk, because in their minds they are totally rational and justified, and their beliefs correspond with the truth.

Well, there's not much I can do to disabuse you of your thinking on Item No. 3, is there? I'd know it by now if you were the kind of person open-minded enough to be able to make concessions in argument. You're not. So I suppose it wouldn't mean much to you if I were to point out that the above excerpt is not only misleading, but just about as pure fake as you can get. It's not a distortion of the truth; it's just plain fake altogether. They might as well have added "with unicorns."

The question of who decides what is supplementary and what is elective, above and beyond basic healthcare, is not new and not controversial. Those rules are fairly well-codified today, and would be even better-codified under healthcare reform. Even in private health insurance rules there is a distinction between such things as "I want bigger breasts for cosmetic reasons" and "I want smaller breasts because I have chronic back pain." Everything in Item No. 3--except for the bit about Canadian pap smears, which is wrong and which I welcome you to check--is based around the fallacious premise that it would be a bad thing for the government to set out rules categorizing various healthcare procedures. Perhaps it would be a bad thing, if Congress were making each and every one of those decisions. They won't be. So far, the only thing they've politicized to any high degree is abortion care. The vast majority of these rules and guidelines have been and will always be written by qualified professionals. Even in private insurance that's how it works, with the caveat that in the for-profit model there is a strong incentive to skew coverage toward a more profitable end.

4. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

Yeah. Wrong. The funding limitations imposed on public organizations are a strong motivator for cost control and effectiveness. I've seen public organizations do wonderful things with offensively small amounts of money because some conservative dumbfucks in representative government slashed their budget. I've seen it many times.

You, GenesisOne, are an offense to the people who work in government. You have besmirched their diligence, their dedication, their ingenuity, and their hardships, and you have impugned their judgment. You have no grasp of what their work entails, be it research science at a university, paving hot asphalt onto a freeway, or serving in combat in Iraq. You have no appreciation and no respect for what they do, because these people do fine work and are fine people, and yet you paste an argument against public healthcare which turns on the inferiority of public workers.

I've seen public workers and private ones. It takes all kinds to make a society, but you know what? The people I have personally known who are in government work have, on the whole, been more committed to doing their jobs well, more hardworking and innovative within the constraints imposed upon them, more interested in the cause they serve, more personally respectable and knowledge in their area of expertise, more dutiful about their obligations within our civil society, more honorable and intelligent, and simply all-out more exceptional than those in the private sector.

You talk about ambivalence. They're not in it for the huge profits, because in government work there are none, unless you're a football coach at a university or a neurologist at the medical center. That breeds ambivalence, you say. But you're wrong: They're in it usually because they care about the work. You talk about wastefulness. They have tenure. They have union representation. They have important skills that can't easily be replaced. That breeds wastefulness, you say. But you're wrong: They don't sit around on their thumbs and twiddle. Even the tenured and well-entrenched contribute positively. And most of them are no more secure in their jobs than private workers. They can be laid off. They can be fired. Oh, maybe a few professors can't and a few celebrities wouldn't, but the rest are as vulnerable as anyone else. You talk about laziness. You say government workers have set hours, aren't allowed to work overtime, and have no incentive to devote themselves to their work. But you're wrong. Wrong again. Wrong on every point, and you either don't know or don't care about how wrong you really are. Instead you smugly say, "Here is an inferior class of people, who will waste money because they don't have an incentive to make money!"

You disgust me.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free.

Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't.

Example--> What if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

I’ve said it before in previous posts and I’ll say it again: The most effective health care for anybody is (and really, it’s no secret) not to get sick in the first place.

High-premium private insurance plans are the real money drains, especially since they divert resources away from other segments of the healthcare sector.

Liberals have bitterly joked for years that the conservative healthcare plan is: "Don't get sick." And yet now you come along and actually say it seriously. What an idiot.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care.

Non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance.

While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant. Furthermore, non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance.

"Shouldn't be emotional," eh? Even though this model of healthcare results in the deaths of thousands of people annually (and the misery of millions more) because basic services could not cover the care they needed, and private insurance was unattainable? Yeah, no emotions there.

I know you don't care about the quality of human life, but here's something you should care about: The "emergency room" form of healthcare is catastrophically expensive, to all taxpayers. I won't even go into all the details of why, from the opportunity costs of not being healthy to the expensiveness of treating a health problem that has blown up to full size, but it's a doozy of an issue and you're welcome to look it up yourself.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

When our government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care. 

Over in the U.K., where they do have universal health care, doctors go on strike because they are not getting paid bonuses or overtime for the exorbitant amounts of patient care that they have to deal with, and that’s just one side effect of implementing such health care reform.

Why don't you try asking citizens who have lived in both countries which system they prefer? Go ahead...

Oh, I know that's not much of an argument. After all, they might all just be a bunch of brainwashed socialists, right? Well, here's a firmer argument: In the UK, when you get sick, you go to the doctor. You don't have a mountain of paperwork to fill out. You don't have to argue with anybody over insurance coverage. You just go in and get seen. If you need any medication or therapy, you'll be given a prescription or a referral. If it's very serious, you will be admitted to the hospital.

In this country, if you have no insurance, you have to lay down a fat wad of cash before you get seen at all. If you do have insurance, you have to fill out the forms, and, too often, argue with the insurance companies when your claims are denied. You have to base your treatment decisions not only on your doctor's advice, but on your ability to pay. Even our president's own mother was on the phone yelling at her insurance company in the final stages of terminal cancer, in the last weeks of her life. How about that?

You talk about the rationing of providers and treatments. We already have rationing in this country: It's called "How much you got?" If you can't pay, you're screwed. Most people will never see the best doctors, the best clinics, the best operating rooms. They'll never have the best drugs or machines. They'll get by with what they are able to pay for. Oftentimes, it's not enough, and their live in misery and die early. That's the legacy of our for-profit health insurance system. A government healthcare plan would have to be pretty darn rotten to do worse than that.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes.

Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?  It’s a pretty backwards concept having to have healthy patients give their tax dollars to some John Doe who doesn’t give a crap about how he lives his life and who’s paying for his gastric bypass or liposuction.

It's the civics, stupid. What an ungrateful, greedy, spiteful mook you are.

I don't own a car, did you know that? That means I pay taxes for roads that I don't use. Hell, forget Seattle. I've never even been to some states, and yet I hear they have all kinds of federally funding highways and bridges and tunnels. That's wasting my money! I demand a refund! I don't want to pay for some idiot in Dallas to be able to drive to work! That's socialism! Blah blah blah blah! Steve Forbes makes me hot! Blah blah blah blah! Who is John Galt? Blah blah blah blah!

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

A universal health care plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary.

All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

Who would’ve guessed that unemployment would be the cost of reform?

I'd like nothing more than for the entire healthcare industry to be put out of business. Not nationalized: Put out of business. They cost Americans so much money, and take away so much from our health because of their own personal greed and irresponsibility. They have perfected legal murder in this country. Every one of those companies should be a crime scene.

As for the individuals who work there: It would cheaper for this nation to send every last one of them to college for free, so that they might train for another profession, than it would be to continue in the current system. Your argument is bogus.

10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

Even doctors can be greedy, especially since that profession is seen in our society as one of the most prestigious and lucrative. Some doctors practice in this country rather than another because they can make much bigger fortunes here. This isn't a good thing. This is a part of the problem. Doctors, especially specialists, simply make too much money. It's draining talent away from general practice in America, and from all medical practice in other nations.

Doctors in this country, particularly specialists in the most lucrative areas, are not paid what they are worth. They have distorted the market. Some of them may give up the practice if they are told they can't gouge their patients quite as much. That's true. And in a time when the need for doctors in increasing, that's going to be a real problem that we will have to face. But face it we must, because the alternative is the current system, where the price of healthcare means many people simply don't get healthcare at all. That's far more disastrous.

The rest of your point is simply a rehash of No. 4.

This is by no means a complete list, but it’s a far cry from what you called cockamamie ignorance, Lord J. 

Right...

Truthordeal

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Dunno what's supposed to go here. Oh now I see.
    • View Profile
    • Youtube Account
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4512 on: November 09, 2009, 08:10:32 pm »
It appears that Thought and J saved me the trouble. And an interesting study from Zeality too. Genesis, I'm still not keen on the idea of universal health care. In fact, the libertarian in me hates it more than anything. However, Lord J and Thought have cornered me on this issue, and addressed a few concerns of mine.

If there were a way to keep prices down(which was the job of the insurance companies) without this, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, the Republicans have dropped the ball, and haven't come up with anything to oppose the bill that's working its way through Congress.

I need to ask though; the bill that passed this weekend, was it the same that Max Baucus came up with a few weeks ago, or has something been added or removed or altered(besides the abortion amendment)?

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4513 on: November 09, 2009, 08:23:23 pm »
I need to ask though; the bill that passed this weekend, was it the same that Max Baucus came up with a few weeks ago, or has something been added or removed or altered(besides the abortion amendment)?

No, those are two completely different pieces of legislation. You can read about the one that passed over the weekend here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03962:

The true Senate counterpart to HR 3962 doesn't exist yet. It will soon. Currently it is being put together by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. It will be comprised in part by the Baucus legislation (i.e., the Senate Finance Committee), in part by the Senate HELP Committee legislation, and may also contain other elements as introduced under Rule XIV.

Edit: Obviously you don't know what "Rule XIV" is. Here's what it means:

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Senate_Rule_XIV_Procedures_for_Placing_Measures_Directly_on_the_Senate_Calendar.pdf

What it boils down to is that Leadership can bypass its committee system.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 08:27:42 pm by Lord J Esq »

Sajainta

  • Survivor of the Darkness
  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2004
  • Reporting live from Purgatory.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #4514 on: November 09, 2009, 11:11:10 pm »
Someone I know is having a birthday party and I haven't been invited.  This wouldn't bug me if I hadn't felt that we were fairly close friends last semester, and we hadn't spent hours and hours simply talking.  I practically lived at their house for all of last semester.

Fuck it.  Just, fuck it.  I tried.  I really did.  I suck at maintaining friendships.  I'm too shy, too self-conscious, too solitary, too distrustful, etc. etc. etc.  I don't know if the death of this friendship is my doing or theirs, but I really did try to rekindle it this semester.  And I failed miserably, apparently.

Things like this just reinforce my deeply-held beliefs that I am unwanted, a nuisance, and a burden.