Originally Posted By DAR The recent events at Walter Reed Memorial have lead me to believe that maybe the government being in charge of the healthcare system in this country might not be the best thing.
Originally Posted By jonvn And then there is the story yesterday of the little boy who died because he couldn't get any medical aid, and a simple toothache turned into a brain infection. Oh, and then there's the story of a friend of mine, her granddaughter has a brain tumor. She has $1 million in insurance lifetime, and in 4 months has already gone through half of it. After that, gee, guess the little girl gets turned out, or the entire family is driven to bankruptcy and poverty. Yep....we have just the best medical care possible... People need to realize that they aren't wealthy and they need to stop espousing positions that help those who are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'd qualify that to say that this latest in a string of scandals is more indicative of the bush administration than of the "government". The general, who was summarily relieved, admitted that he'd never even walked through the facility even though his office was only a couple of blocks away. Incompetence, criminal negligence, and placing people into positions they have no business being in are all hallmarks of this administration. There are two likely reasons for this - nepotism and ideology. It must be awfully hard for them to find people who share their political beliefs, which is a priority over actual qualifications.
Originally Posted By DAR But if the patients at Walter Reed can't get the best care, what makes you guys think that some family on a limited income would receive the best care from the government? I'm telling you the worst thing you can do is rely on them for anything.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Yep....we have just the best medical care possible...>> I didn't say we did.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But if the patients at Walter Reed can't get the best care" Then they need to fix it. "what makes you guys think that some family on a limited income would receive the best care from the government" What makes you think no care at all is preferable? What makes you think that the current system works for large numbers of people? I figure you have health insurance, and you think it's just dandy. Well, you may (god forbid) find out like my friends did that it is NOT. Or perhaps you'll be out of a job, and need some medical care and will not be able to get any without losing your home. Then you might be singing a different tune. You're not rich. Stop thinking you are. Health care for the citizens of this country is something you need too, whether you realize it or not.
Originally Posted By DAR We do need healthcare, but I'd rather have the private sector find a way to make it a affordable.
Originally Posted By jonvn This is the problem: They aren't doing it. You are at risk, and you need to realize it. This is not someone else's problem. Or a problem for the poor. This is YOUR problem. People need to figure this out. YOU. Lose your job, have a heart attack, and boom. So much for everything you ever worked for. So much for your kids going to college, so much for your house, so much for everything. The only way to fix this is via government mandates. This is how it works in the rest of the world. We have substandard medical care in this country, and it is criminal.
Originally Posted By DAR Then you are far more trustworthy that this government won't screw this up. I'll give you credit for that.
Originally Posted By jonvn You mean trusting. I don't know if they will screw it up. They likely will But: It is already screwed up. In a different way, perhaps, but still screwed up. And again, you need to realize, that it's not for OTHER people it is screwed up for. It is YOU PERSONALLY, DAR, that it is screwed up on. YOU. OK? Not some homeless guy on the street. Not some poor clod who works at Walmart, but YOU. And you should be up on your feet demanding something be done about it before you do end up in dire need.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>YOU. OK? Not some homeless guy on the street. Not some poor clod who works at Walmart, but YOU. And you should be up on your feet demanding something be done about it before you do end up in dire need.<< And its not just that. If you are lucky enough to have quality health insurance, you are paying through the nose for it. And don't kid yourself that "your employer is paying for it". Its part of you compensation package, and if it wasn't so darn expensive, there might be a bit more in your paycheck. Besides, the government is already picking up the tab for about half of us already: medicare, medicaid, VA, and Federal civilian employees are covered by the gov't. I for one would welcome a single payer system that could stand up to big pharma and its US price gouging. >>We do need healthcare, but I'd rather have the private sector find a way to make it a affordable. << Thye have no incentive to do such a thing. Why derail the gravy train? And to those that predict that a single payer system will mean rationing, what do you think your HMO is doing? Ever have your HMO tell you: "Sorry, that prescription is not on the plan formulary. Go ask you doctor to prescribe something else.". We have.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The recent events at Walter Reed Memorial have lead me to believe that maybe the government being in charge of the healthcare system in this country might not be the best thing.<< FWIW, bizarre things happen at private hospitals as well.
Originally Posted By ecdc So DAR, you say the government can't do it, then who can? What's your solution? Are you honestly suggesting that HMOs are going to voluntarily start offering it to the poor? Do you think no care at all is preferable? You've taken the example of Walter Reed (which, as gadzuux pointed out, is more of a commentary on the current administration than on the government's abilities as a whole) and then say "Well this is proof positive that the government can't be involved in health care." That's pretty sloppy logic. Criticizing the government (as you have pointed out so many times--as long as its Democrats doing the criticizing, that is) is like shooting fish in a barrel. What's your solution?
Originally Posted By DAR Like I said my solution would be the for the private sector to figure out, without help from the government, how to make healthcare affordable for everyone. If the government takes over it's not the wealthy that are going to pay more, it's going to be a single person like myself.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, but the problem with that is they simply aren't. They have no incentive to do so. So they won't. So you're screwed, bud.
Originally Posted By jonvn I guess you missed the part where you may lose your job which happens. Or you missed the part where you may run into your plan's limits. Or you missed the several parts where it was explained exactly why this all pertains directly to you, given the above two scenarios. You are screwed. You're just lucky right now you have something. One catastrophic illness, one set of bad luck in the job market, and that luck runs out.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj As a recipient of military medicine, I wouldn't equate the problems in military health facilities to predicted outcomes for "socialized medicine." The problems in military medicine today are largely attributed to a huge downsizing in facilities and investments over the past decade. The budget cuts didn't seem to make much difference at the time when the size of the overall force was shrinking and no one was getting wounded on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the planned budgets didn't really take into account future conflicts or how to best prepare for those outcomes. The organization was not prepared to succeed when the casualties started rolling in from Iraq and Afghanistan. In contrast, a national healthcare system as a whole doesn't have to plan for the fluctuations in patient numbers associated with conflicts in the same way that the military might be concerned. A national healthcare system could base investment and expenditures on demographic trends and long-term objectives based on population and risk factors. Therefore, I think comparing the two systems is apples and oranges. All that being said, I'm not a huge fan of socialized medicine. However, I do think our government needs to set the health care priorities for our nation in a way that targets preventive medicine and focuses efforts on fighting communicable diseases among the younger population. As it stands, we are focusing far too much effort on health care for the elderly at the expense of medical care for the younger generation. We need to figure out the right balance so that we are not overfunding a population that no longer contributes much to society at the expense of those who are still working and actively involved in making the wheels of society turn. It's a tough balance, but with the aging Baby Boomers it is likely that we'll choose to keep their generation on life support at a cost than cannot be paid for by future generations.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan We already have socialized medicine, but we kid ourselves into thinking we don't. What happens is people with no insurance must go to county hospitals and taxpayers pick up the tab. Why is it that health care -- a basic necessity that everyone, rich or poor all require as human beings -- is a "benefit". We've got one unfair, screwed up system out there. People who pay their own insurance, like me, pay through the nose for it. And even though your employer may offer it as a benefit now, a job loss or change in jobs will open a person's eyes to the reality of what a house of cards we've constructed with health care.
Originally Posted By jonvn "We need to figure out the right balance so that we are not overfunding a population that no longer contributes much to society at the expense of those who are still working" That sounds great until you become a member of that group. Everyone deserves to have the best care they can get. Not "Oh, you're now over 70, so we aren't going to take care of you quite as well as we used to."
