Government Health Care

[dauntingknight]

As soon as you allow somebody else(Goverment) to pay for your medical expenses you allow that person to make decisions whether you live or die.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dauntingknight' date='28 August 2009 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1251510395' post='1957574']
As soon as you allow somebody else(Goverment) to pay for your medical expenses you allow that person to make decisions whether you live or die.
[/quote]
Which is why I advocate a "public option" rather than completely socialized healthcare.
But the way that the government is wanting to do it is, as usual, overly bureaucratic and wasteful. There are myriad better ways to do it than setting up what is in effect their own insurance company.

MT is also right - a substantial malpractice reform should be instituted.

[KnightofChrist]

The "public option" is the first step to completely socialized healthcare.

[dauntingknight]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1251511211' post='1957585']
The "public option" is the first step to completely socialized healthcare.
[/quote]
I second that!

[Vincent Vega]

It may be one component thereof, but that's a bit of a leap, suggesting that a public option would mean that one day we're going to have a completely socialized health care system.
That would be a bit like saying that because we allow girl altar servers, well, that's the first step to ordaining women.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1251511985' post='1957592']
It may be one component thereof, but that's a bit of a leap, suggesting that a public option would mean that one day we're going to have a completely socialized health care system.
That would be a bit like saying that because we allow girl altar servers, well, that's the first step to ordaining women.
[/quote]

No, it is not if you are know your history, and even the present. Government grows and grows and grows. You give Uncle Sugar a cookie he'll want a glass of milk. The 'public option' would put many many citizens out of work because the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly, that doesn't have to worry about profitability or even breaking even, it could [i]perpetually[/i] go in the red at the dime of the tax payers.

Anyway the "public option" is just watered down language used to trick people into a government run socialized health care system. Similar to using "Pro-Choice" as trickery language for killing babies.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1251512439' post='1957595']
No, it is not if you are know your history, and even the present. Government grows and grows and grows. You give Uncle Sugar a cookie he'll want a glass of milk. The 'public option' would put many many citizens out of work because the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly, that doesn't have to worry about profitability or even breaking even, it could [i]perpetually[/i] go in the red at the dime of the tax payers.[/quote]
The people of the United States will not stand for socialized health care. People will elect Obamas and Pelosis while they spew their rainbows and sunshine...but when it impacts them, their votes will walk, I guarantee it.
See: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Surgery-vs--Non-surgical-treatment-for-back-disorders-16012-1/
This was a randomized study, meaning that participants were placed into treatment groups on a randomized basis. If you can find the full study somewhere, you'll see that about 75% percent of the people opted out of being randomly placed into a treatment group. Of the 25% who consented, only about 50% of those (so 12.5% overall) went with the treatment group into which they were initially placed. This illustrates pretty clearly that if nothing else, Americans like being able to choose their treatment options. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al can do all they want to socialize this country, but no change is permanent. I have confidence that the Americans would not stand for socialized health care. That's the beauty of being able to change regimes every four years.
[quote]
Anyway the "public option" is just watered down language used to trick people into a government run socialized health care system. Similar to using "Pro-Choice" as trickery language for killing babies.
[/quote]
Still a stretch, and not even a comparison. An option for a basic health care providence for those who cannot afford it is not even equivalent to the slaughter of the unborn, and frankly, I don't like that you trivialize such a matter by comparing it to something which, in the grand scheme, is much less pernicious.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1251514592' post='1957606']

Still a stretch, and not even a comparison. An option for a basic health care providence for those who cannot afford it is not even equivalent to the slaughter of the unborn, and frankly, I don't like that you trivialize such a matter by comparing it to something which, in the grand scheme, is much less pernicious.
[/quote]

What are you talking about? The 'comparison' is how both are using language to trick Americans, to hide it's true meaning. That was all there was to the 'comparison.'

But since it's out there now, how will the [i]public option[/i] not pay for abortions?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1251516170' post='1957617']
But since it's out there now, how will the [i]public option[/i] not pay for abortions?
[/quote]
That's a good question, and naturally, it shouldn't.
I believe you possibly misconceive my point - I'm not arguing for Obama's solution. It's got flaws a plenty. I am, however, still in favor of a public option with which to aid the least of our brethren.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1251516170' post='1957617']
What are you talking about? The 'comparison' is how both are using language to trick Americans, to hide it's true meaning. That was all there was to the 'comparison.'
[/quote]
Except that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. A public option to pay for health care for those who could not otherwise afford it could be just that, if done correctly. You seem to have two political settings: communism and anarchy. Government is a spectrum, not a rocker switch.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1251514592' post='1957606']
The people of the United States will not stand for socialized health care. People will elect Obamas and Pelosis while they spew their rainbows and sunshine...but when it impacts them, their votes will walk, I guarantee it.
See: http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Surgery-vs--Non-surgical-treatment-for-back-disorders-16012-1/
This was a randomized study, meaning that participants were placed into treatment groups on a randomized basis. If you can find the full study somewhere, you'll see that about 75% percent of the people opted out of being randomly placed into a treatment group. Of the 25% who consented, only about 50% of those (so 12.5% overall) went with the treatment group into which they were initially placed. This illustrates pretty clearly that if nothing else, Americans like being able to choose their treatment options. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al can do all they want to socialize this country, but no change is permanent. I have confidence that the Americans would not stand for socialized health care. That's the beauty of being able to change regimes every four years.
[/quote]

Yes the people would be, slowly, or by trickery. Like a frog in a pot that slowing boils, or the magician with the slight of hand.

The [i]public option[/i] that is now being pushed by the government is a would be government run monopoly that would slowly kill the private sector, and force most people into it, by the threat of high tax/fine.

If you define [i]public option[/i] differently then perhaps to clear up the confusion use different language.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1251516579' post='1957620']
The [i]public option[/i] that is now being pushed by the government is a would be government run monopoly that would slowly kill the private sector, and force most people into it, by the threat of high tax/fine.
[/quote]
I guess our vital difference then is that you see a country of people who are sheep being herded by their bellwether into the socialist slaughterhouse and I see a country of people who have the American spirit imbued still within them, and would be able to eventually find a balance between all or nothing, so to speak.

Edited August 29, 2009 by USAirwaysIHS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1251516577' post='1957619']
Except that sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. A public option to pay for health care for those who could not otherwise afford it could be just that, if done correctly. You seem to have two political settings: communism and anarchy. Government is a spectrum, not a rocker switch.
[/quote]

Again not in the case of the current bills in congress. They are using the term 'public option' for what is clearly a would be government run monopoly, that would require "everybody in, nobody out*".



[i]*Barrack Obama[/i]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 August 2009 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1251516741' post='1957626']
I guess our vital difference then is that you see a country of people who are sheep being herded by their bellwether into the socialist slaughterhouse and I see a country of people who have the American spirit imbued still within them, and would be able to eventually find a balance between all or nothing, so to speak.
[/quote]

Then we are talking about the current bills in congress. In that case perhaps you have unfortunately bought in to the emotional argument for the 'public option' it will 'help' more than just the poor. It would over time require most Americans to be 'covered' by the 'public option.'

I'm not using an emotional argument such as [i]socialist slaughterhouses.[/i] I have read the bill, listened to the elected officials who support it and gathered a rather logical conclusion. That the 'public option' would be a government run monopoly that would put private businesses out of business, and further unemployment which would have ripple effects on the economy which would cause further unemployment. Which would also cause more people to be on the 'public option.'

They just in the last couple weeks started using the language 'public option' for ws before government run health, that 'would cover most Americans'. That is how it was portrayed by it's supports before the big stink abougt it. Now it's supports have repackaged the same old package of fail.

Edited August 29, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='28 August 2009 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1251516770' post='1957628']
Again not in the case of the current bills in congress. They are using the term 'public option' for what is clearly a would be government run monopoly, that would require "everybody in, nobody out*".



[i]*Barrack Obama[/i]
[/quote]
You only think that because you want to believe "public option" means that the government takes complete control when in reality, it's only an [i]option[/i] along side private insurance. I don't see what interest the government would have to put insurance companies out of business other than some vast conspiracy (which i don't buy, sorry)