I'm all for being a "neo-socialist" when it comes to healthcare. I'll be very unhappy if healthcare doesn't change. I want heathcare for all, somehow, without having to become indigent.

Some change is fine but,where I have a problem is with the sorry,
lazy people who could work just like me who will NOT work.Now,I am not talking about the people that are losing their jobs. God be with them.

I am not talking about those who deserve all the help they can get,
the elderly or disabled (truly disabled).
How many people do you know that claim disability when you KNOW it's
not deserved? Not think, KNOW!
God,please help our country!

I think the short answer is that no country has healthcare all right, but we're pretty close to haveing it all wrong. I would trade what we have now for nearly any of the European systems that provide a basic universal plan that can be augmented by those who want to pay more for more.

I hope Obama keeps the same structure that he promised at the beginning of the campaign. It is one reason why I liked him better than Hillary. He maintains the current structure but offers a free universal healthcare option to those who would prefer it or need it. That way, I can keep my preferred healthcare providers but if I hit hard times, I can still get quality healthcare instead of having my hospital bed rolled out into the street.

OK, agreed. Everyone has a RIGHT to the best healthcare possible...

Questions:

• Will there be enough healthcare to go around?
• If not, how will it be rationed? or allocated
• When we finally build up the capacity of our healthcare system so that everyone's RIGHT to the best possible healthcare is met, who will pay for it?
• Finally when healthcare becomes a commodity (which is what it will be when capacity matches demand) how will we convince anyone to make the sacrifices required to get through medical school - the pay for providing commodity services isn't so great. Come to think of it who will do the research and development needed for new equipment, drugs, and procedures?

These are just the simple and obvious questions.

The hard ethical ones will come later like:

• Who will define or decide what the best possible healthcare is for any given situation or any given person?
• Will it be OK to eliminate people who use more than their fair share of healthcare?
• How will we handle babies with "bad genes" that conclusively tell us they will need more healthcare than people without those genes?

Finally, will these questions be answered based on elections? Will the majority party make these decisions -and will the decision makers change depending on the outcomes of elections?

Oh, well. I guess one should not think about such things.

After all our elected officals know what's best, always consider the people first, and strive to make sure that their decisions fairly affect everyone.

So what's to worry?

It will be nice knowing that you and I will get the same healthcare for the same money as President Bush, Donald Trump, or T. Boone Pickens - everyone being equal under universal one-provider healthcare. Hmmmmm, how in the world will they get Harriman Hospital up to the same standards of the Mayo Clinic? On second thought they won't have to they will just fly us where we need to go to get our equal healthcare.

Won't that be good for the travel industry.

Good points Brant.

I think everyone agrees that everyone needs healthcare. The thing that scares me is how do you achieve it and who pays for it.

There is not possible way to offer everyone in this country equal healthcare without going up on taxes. To give everyone free healthcare would bankrupt the working people.

It honestly does not really matter what any of us think because we are going to get what is handed down to us. We will not have a choice in it.

Why not sit down with the plan put forth by Obama and read it. Some of the statements here look foolish in the face of what is actually proposed.

Look at the economics. Do some arithmetic. Ask yourself why healthcare costs have doubled since the healthcare industry shot down Hillary Clinton's plan?

Ask yourself why doctors and hospitals are being squeezed and your insurance still keeps going up? Go read Daschle's book or at least some excerpts. And quit repeating scary talking points that have no basis in fact.

A lot of big inefficient corporations have a large stake in keeping the status quo of mediocre healthcare at a high cost. Time for that to change.

(link...)

I offer a different explanation: support
for improving the nation’s health care
system has been eroded by myths about
the strengths of the status quo and
weaknesses of alternatives.

Like FH said it doesn't matter how "scary" our questions, we will get exactly what is forced upon us... nothing more and nothing less.

My questions may indeed be scary but talking points they are not - has it ever occurred to you (WC) that people (besides yourself) have independent thoughts?

WC, I have noticed that EVERY time I bring up a point or a question to which you disagree, your first and most frequent response is an ad hominem attack.

Argumentum ad hominem proves nothing, gives nothing, and provides nothing to weigh in order to determine the validity of your view. Continually saying that I or my thoughts are ignorant, sophomoric, unlearned, foolish, and are merely "talking points" gives nothing upon which to build a foundation of understanding, compromise, or agreement.

If you are serious and the answers to my "scary" questions so simple, will you not instruct us.

As far as reading what Tom Daschle's ghost writers have said for him, I don't put much stock in the books of politicians - they ALWAYS have an agenda. Most such books are little more than fund raising ploys - a way for supporters to funnel huge sums to the "author/candidate". (I may just read his book anyway).

President-Elect Obama has written two autobiographies in one he wrote that he is his brother’s keeper, his sister's keeper. My question is how does he plan to care for me and I am not a family member?

On reading President-Elect Obama's healthcare plan - been there done that (link...) or
(link...)

When I study the Obama-Biden plan, I see “scary” stuff.

It seems to me that the result and implied goal of this plan is to enroll more and more people in public coverage. The goal being that existing private non-group and private employer-sponsored insurance will be crowded-out of the market. Then we will have just one healthcare provider - the federal government. Thus, the Obama-Biden healthcare plan backdoors Hill’s plan.

We saw how this works in Hawaii with the SCHIP. In Hawaii, we saw people drop their private coverage and flock to the “free” coverage.

Unfortunately, Hawaii recently abandoned its universal health care for children because the system was overwhelmed as employers and private citizens said, “Why should I continue to pay for my children's insurance when I can get it free from the State?”

The same will happen under the Obama-Biden plan only unlike the State of Hawaii the Federal Government's taxation powers are limitless. Where Hawaii had to abandon universal care due to budget constraints, the Federal Government will not.

To raise additional money required to implement the Obama-Biden plan, the Federal Government will simply raise taxes. Thus, the estimated $1.7 trillion (net of savings) over a 10-year period will come out of our pockets. (I have seen estimates that after savings the Obama-Biden plan will require increased Federal spending to the tune of $6 trillion over 10 years - this study assumed that the government would pick up 100% of the SCHIP costs).

Every study I have seen says that the Obama-Biden plan will succeed in reducing the number of uninsured citizens, BUT it will not control costs in any significant way while demanding considerable increases in federal expenditures.

Coverage expansion would be driven by enrollment in public plans in which the government would set benefit levels and provider reimbursement rates.

Cost-savings would not come from fundamentally realigning economic incentives but would rely on dubious "if only” propositions related to changes in health care delivery.

The result: Private insurance companies and private healthcare providers will be driven out of business, as the inevitability of a one-provider system becomes a reality.

Presto digito! We will have what we get whether we want it or not - just like FH said.

An ad hominem attack would be something like calling someone the son of a mongrel instead of pointing out the fallacies of their argument. I called your argument the repetition of a talking point intended to scare people...I didn't say you were scary.

Now...Let's see you back up this claim:

The result: Private insurance companies and private healthcare providers will be driven out of business, as the inevitability of a one-provider system becomes a reality.

I don't particularly care if private insurance companies become less of a factor in the healthcare chain. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't see anything in any of the current favored plans that would hurt private providers.

Let me ask you another question...Do you think the best healthcare is received in for profit or not for profit hospitals?

(link...)

No, that would be an insult.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps.

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances (ignorant), or her actions is made (you voted for McCain), or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim (you are repeating talking points).

Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Brant: "I believe that the Obama-Biden Healthcare plan will cost more than they claim."

WC: "Of course you would say that, you're a Republican."

Brant: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

WC: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a Republican, so you have to say that Obama is wrong. Further, you are just mindlessly repeating scary talking points, so I can't believe what you say."

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

(link...)

Only I never said any of that.

WC writes: Now...Let's see you back up this claim:

The result: Private insurance companies and private healthcare providers will be driven out of business, as the inevitability of a one-provider system becomes a reality.

My statement was a conclusion I made based upon my understanding of the market and people's behavior in the market. I used the example of Hawaii to illustrate how my conclusion might come to pass. It might work like this:

• People are offered a lower cost or "free" plan administered by the Government (per the Obama-Biden-Daschle-Clinton Plan).
• People weigh the alternatives and acting in their best self-interest drop their private or employer provided health plans in favor of the "free" or "lower cost" government plan (as they did in Hawaii).
• Private carries and providers see a huge decline in their enrollments and if they are in the financial position to do so seek out other opportunities to make a profit. (Businesses also act in their own best self-interests).
• Thus, some private providers and insurers may go out of business entirely others will just change businesses.

WC, when you wrote, I don't particularly care if private insurance companies become less of a factor in the healthcare chain. This is not necessarily a bad thing. didn't you support my argument. Aren't you just saying outloud what the Obama-Biden-Daschle-Clinton people won’t.

If you don't see anything in any of the current favored plans that would hurt private providers perhaps try reading the plan again. Of course, we were specifically talking about the Obama-Biden plan what other plan have you in mind.

Then again, you may have a point. If government run healthcare is anything like other government run or quasi-government programs the waste, fraud, and overhead will leave plenty of opportunity for private enterprise (USPS vs. UPS).

Finally, I decline to answer your last question. Just recently in another thread, you excoriated me about my opinion on the efficacy of Medicare and the VA Healthcare systems. I believe you called my thoughts “anecdotal evidence”.

If I express my opinion on profit vs. not for profit hospitals, wouldn't my opinion be anecdotal?

I will however look into the matter and see what others have to say. If I report my findings, will you consider my effort just another repetition of scary talking points?

Look Brant,

This is rather tiresome... My Gramma would call it "Boresome" as well. I'm having trouble following your arguments, partly because you just say things and don't give links or references. (and you're right...I won't accept any reference from the Heritage Foundation, Cato institute, or Rush Limbaugh as being remotely trustworthy)

If you are stating an opinion, try using "I think" or something rather than stating things as fact. If you state something as fact, back it up.

In order for your logic string to be true, every step must be true. Nobody needs health insurance per se...they need health CARE. I think you confuse insurance "carrier" with healthcare "provider". I don't have any problem with health insurance carriers wasting away. The function was originally an accounting job where risk was pooled and the cost was shared. Now we have massive "too big to fail" corporations who try to collect money from people who don't get sick much, while refusing to insure people who might.

The problem is the transition from our existing system to a single payer system. I don't want all those people who work for HMO's to lose their jobs but we're in transition, hopefully away from a service oriented nation to a manufacturing one again. Health care "providers" should do very well in the future once the 30% burden of big corporate carriers is removed from the system.

Now I have a weekend to enjoy.

I bow to your Grandmother's wisdom and accept her and your judgment that my comments and I are tiresome and boresome.

Because I am boresome, I also accept your rejection of any conservative source of information on the grounds that they are untrustworthy.

Naturally, it follows (and I accept) that all liberal information sources are trustworthy.

Rather than label as "opinion" my comments (something I thought was a given and something you never do), I concede in advance that every thought and idea I might express is tiresome, ignorant, foolish, boresome, scary, or whatever term you favor.

WC you have proven a point (perhaps not the one you wished) and in the the process shown us that ad hominem attacks work.

EXAMPLE OF CLASSIC ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM:

Brant: "All I was saying is that people may prefer 'free' healthcare and thus drop their private coverage (as in Hawaii). As a result private companies will suffer".

WC: "That's tiresome. My Gramma would call you ‘boresome' besides I can't understand you because you don't provide enough ‘links’.”

BW: "OK, here are some links that I find informative."

WC: "I won't accept any of those links because they are conservative and thus untrustworthy."

BW: "Hey! wait a minute. Your links are all 'liberal'. Are they to be trusted?"

WC: "Why as a matter of fact yes, because I am not tiresome."

QUESTION:

If we don't have some sort of insurance, who is going to pay for all of our healthcare needs?

ANSWER:

Taxpayers! People who actually pay taxes.

Refute that!

PS: While we are cleansing our county of for profit healthcare insurers, why stop with health insurance. Why not rid ourselves of auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, long-term care insurance, performance bonds, business fire and liability insurance, municipal insurance, mortgage and title insurance, etc.... Why, not let the government/taxpayers cover any losses - that would be the ultimate "shared risk" pool (wait a minute what about people who pay no taxes?)

PSS: MY OPINION: In the USA manufacturing will never be back. Having worked in a steel foundry (Westlectric Castings, Inc in Commerce, CA.), I can say that non-manufacturing jobs in technology, banking, or (gasp) insurance are a better way to go.

PSSS: Do you even understand the concept of "insurance"; how it is financed; and what it is meant to do?

Finally Brant!!! Now you get what I have been telling you for several threads now. You can't win with WC. We are all so far below his intellectual level that our tiny brains can't possibly be expected to understand his logic (or I'm sorry, the truth). He doesn't state opinions. If he believes it then it is fact!!! If you don't agree with him then you just don't understand the issue because his way of thinking is the ONLY possible outcome. Nevermind that he almost blindly repeats whatever the Dems say is best for the country. He only does so after critically thinking the issue through. It is just coincidence that he sounds like a hypnotized liberal mouthpiece.

But I have enjoyed your back & forth in this thread. I never would have read a 19 reply thread about healthcare otherwise. :)

Now you have to go look up "straw man" argument.. Let's be aware that I never said any of that stuff, but that you phrased it as if I did. You don't seem to be really interested in discourse, and you keep confusing insurers with healthcare providers. I guess you do that so you can't keep from having to agree with the point.

And since we have sorta lost what the point is with all this ranting...

Health care insurers have needlessly burdened health care providers with a 30% overhead that obstructs the actual providing of health care. President elect Obama proposes to eliminate that needless overhead, save the unproductive cost, and use that savings to provide basic care to far more people than are currently covered by a health care plan.

Now, Brant, do this folks you represent know that you think it is best for manufacturing jobs to be eliminated? You seem to be saying that all the weapons you sell should be manufactured in foreign countries?

While your exchanges (Brant and WC) make for entertaining reading, they clearly demonstrate why the health care crisis in this country continues to worsen. The right and left are so polarized in their beliefs that a meeting of minds is next to impossible. Instead of strutting writing prowess and intellect why not devote that energy to "out of the box" thinking that may offer potential solutions to a problem that we all acknowledge. Granted, we'll probably have no influence on the outcome, but not all good ideas come from the powers that be.