Congressman Paul: Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

Congressman Ron Paul
14th District of Texas

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Posted by Ron Paul (07-20-2009, 12:30 PM)

link

PJTV Invites Citizens to Engage in Virtual Health Care Forum on July 22 http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/pdf_button.png http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/printButton.png http://pr-canada.net/images/M_images/emailButton.png Posted by Editor Monday, 20 July 2009 Pajamas TV will host key lawmakers, health care specialists, and policy experts in a Virtual Forum on Health Care at 7:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 22 that will be streamed live at www.PJTV.com. PJTV is encouraging citizens to join the discussion about the consequences of government-run health care by submitting questions, comments and ideas through email, PJTV.com, YouTube and Twitter. Questions will also be accepted during the forum on July 22.
In the days leading up to the July 22 forum, citizens can submit their text or video input via several online communications channels. They can visit http://www.pjtv.com/healthcare, and follow the instructions there. They can also email their text or video questions to [email protected]This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . For video submissions, participants must include their full name, hometown and a contact phone number, and videos must be 30 seconds or less. During the July 22 webcast, viewers will be able to send in their comments via email and Twitter.

"PJTV is bringing the health care debate into the homes of our nation's online community with this interactive forum. With the future of our health care system at stake, concerned citizens deserve to have their voices heard on this issue, and PJTV is providing the forum to make that happen," said Roger L. Simon, CEO of Pajamas TV.

Featured participants in PJTV's Virtual Forum on Health Care include House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), Chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI), the top Republican member on the House Ways and Means Committee. John Goodman, President and Founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis will also be participating along with other experts on health care policy. The forum will be hosted from Pajamas TV's Washington, D.C. studio by "Instapundit" Glenn Reynolds and will include PJTV commentators and bloggers from studios in Los Angeles and New York City.

This forum is the latest installment in PJTV's coverage of the health care debate. Just this week, PJTV released an eye-opening hidden camera video expos , hosted by PJTV entertainer Steven Crowder, that reveals the failures of the Canadian socialized medicine system. To watch the video, visit http://www.pjtv.com/v/2153.

About Pajamas TV

Pajamas TV (www.PJTV.com) is a conservative and center-right Internet TV company. Working with conservative think tanks and bloggers, Pajamas TV started production in September 2008 as the first online TV venture to be given a sky box at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. The Pajamas TV headquarters studio is located in El Segundo, Calif., with remote studio locations in New York City and Washington, D.C. In addition, PJTV brings in many contributors via web cams.

For more information about the online forum or to schedule an interview with a Pajamas TV representative, please contact Megan Franko (ext. 148) or Romney Beebe (ext. 118) at (703) 683-5004.

Source: Pajamas TV

I think he's right, but the good is a necessity which eventually almost always turns into not quite a right, but a social service. like garbage collecting and policemen.

are policemen a right?
are garbage collectors a right?
are water utlities a right?
are sewers a right?
are firefighters a right?
is electricity a right?

..none of these are rights but the need almost turns them into rights. these utlities and social services have to be monitored by the government to keep costs down and protect the consumer from getting reamed.


...and I think that is all Obama wants......an easier way to monitor this necessity or at least turn it into a utility that is monitored for cost at every turn.

Agreed here that, for this essay to be effective, Ron Paul needs to state what ARE rights, and what ARE goods. Specific, concrete examples.

Do people have the right to have policeman in their city? Or is that a good provided?

In fact, what rights can't be explained away as goods? Certain things like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc etc. But any service provided by a person could theoretically be considered a 'good', except perhaps the right of a defendant to a lawyer.

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

Everything in life is a good until it is secured as a right. The only question is whether a good should be secured as a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

can't never? wow!

I guess also if he never wins he wouldn't be a congressman. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chode_regulator

can't never? wow!

I guess also if he never wins he wouldn't be a congressman. :rolleyes

---

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
I'm talking about primaries and winning his party nomination...

"can't ever"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Agreed here that, for this essay to be effective, Ron Paul needs to state what ARE rights, and what ARE goods. Specific, concrete examples.

Do people have the right to have policeman in their city? Or is that a good provided?

In fact, what rights can't be explained away as goods? Certain things like freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc etc. But any service provided by a person could theoretically be considered a 'good', except perhaps the right of a defendant to a lawyer.

---

Presumably, Mr Paul thinks all these things ought to be up for grabs, or at least up for discussion.

In some places county participation is crucial; in others, that of cities. From time to time the powers of the state will promote the general good: highways and bridges, dams and maintaining parks and rest stops and dredging up a good beach for summer vacationers.

Free ferries at Port A.

Law enforcement.

Ag programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

I'll take your word for it. I only recall many conservatives talking pretty highly about the guy and his ideals, but when it's time to vote in the primaries he never seems to get enough votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

So isolationist = pussy now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'll take your word for it. I only recall many conservatives talking pretty highly about the guy and his ideals, but when it's time to vote in the primaries he never seems to get enough votes.

---

Everything except his military stance. In a posy 9/11 environment, that killed his chances with conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So isolationist = pussy now?

---

OK, pussy is the wrong word for him. I like him as a congressman, but he doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief. That's a deal breaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Everything except his military stance. In a posy 9/11 environment, that killed his chances with conservatives.

OK, pussy is the wrong word for him. I like him as a congressman, but he doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief. That's a deal breaker.

---

So wanting to refrain from engaging in international wars = doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief?

I believe it was George Washington who held the belief that America should stay as neutral as possible, and not get into entanglements with other nations, whether as an ally or enemy.

I seem to recall him being a decent General as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

There's a reason most conservatives say they like this guy but when push comes to shove he can't never win an election...

---

Thats because most conservatives are Republicans, and Ron Paul, he dances to the tune sometimes, but is a Libertarian at heart.

And to LnGrrrR's question, I bet Mr. Paul would say that if a city wants to pay for firemen or policemen, thats their right, but the federal government shouldn't. Remember, libertarians, and republicans are theoretically about a small federal government that does two things, protect states from each other, and protect the US from foreign threats, and let the states handle all the rest internally...

In other words, if your state wants to provide services, have fun, if it doesn't, ok. The Federal Government SHOULD NOT.

This is hardly a new distinction. What Ron Paul calls "rights" are sometimes called "liberties" or "negative rights". "Negative" doesn't mean bad, it means that this kind of rights do not obligate others to work for me (presumably being paid for by the government). What Ron Paul calls "goods" are sometimes called "claim rights" or "positive rights". "Positive" doesn't mean good (or bad) here, it means that this kind of rights obligates someone to work for me, e.g., the right to a lawyer, right to education.

None of these are 100% either way. The right to free speech might require government regulation or law enforcement (as as example of where there is a cost involved, many cities want large demonstrations to pay the police bill).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Thats because most conservatives are Republicans, and Ron Paul, he dances to the tune sometimes, but is a Libertarian at heart.

And to LnGrrrR's question, I bet Mr. Paul would say that if a city wants to pay for firemen or policemen, thats their right, but the federal government shouldn't. Remember, libertarians, and republicans are theoretically about a small federal government that does two things, protect states from each other, and protect the US from foreign threats, and let the states handle all the rest internally...

In other words, if your state wants to provide services, have fun, if it doesn't, ok. The Federal Government SHOULD NOT.

---

And I'm fine with Ron Paul stating that clearly. However, I feel the reason he does NOT do such is that he knows it makes him sound more radical, and it might dissuade some who agree that healthcare is a good from agreeing that police and fire services are also 'goods'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And I'm fine with Ron Paul stating that clearly. However, I feel the reason he does NOT do such is that he knows it makes him sound more radical, and it might dissuade some who agree that healthcare is a good from agreeing that police and fire services are also 'goods'.

---

Well, firefighters aren't something provided at a national level.

Police, with the exception of the US Marshals, and the FBI (which shouldn't exist in its current form), are also not provided at a national level.

Why should health care be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's primarily because he's a pussy when it comes to the military.

---

:lol

I'm glad to know that the purpose of our national defen...er, military is to prove the size of our collective manhood to the world. Since the state is now to be used to make up for our shortcomings, why stop at external state action?

Police and fire protection arise naturally in the best interest of everyone. It is hard to run and live in a city where people get murdered left and right and whole city blocks burn to the ground. They are also cheap to provide as a few unskilled people can provide coverage to a large area. They are in the best interest of the government, of the people, of the poor and of the rich. The same applies to trash pickup and sewage.

Government health care is the complete opposite. It is expensive, requires skilled workers, population coverage per hospital/clinic is small, and it is only in the best interest of the poor.

Ron Paul doesn't get support because he is considered a radical nutjob to the GOP. Has nothing to do with a specific policy. All of his views are against neo-conservatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

Well, firefighters aren't something provided at a national level.

Police, with the exception of the US Marshals, and the FBI (which shouldn't exist in its current form), are also not provided at a national level.

Why should health care be?

---

Ah I can see your point. And yes, I would prefer a state-run healthcare of sorts.

I wonder, are fire and police departments mandated by federal law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Police and fire protection arise naturally in the best interest of everyone. It is hard to run and live in a city where people get murdered left and right and whole city blocks burn to the ground. They are also cheap to provide as a few unskilled people can provide coverage to a large area. They are in the best interest of the government, of the people, of the poor and of the rich. The same applies to trash pickup and sewage.

Government health care is the complete opposite. It is expensive, requires skilled workers, population coverage per hospital/clinic is small, and it is only in the best interest of the poor.

Ron Paul doesn't get support because he is considered a radical nutjob to the GOP. Has nothing to do with a specific policy. All of his views are against neo-conservatism.

---

The way I see it, health care does affect all of us, as emergency rooms are forced to take care of the insured and uninsured alike.

As well, there is a public safety risk associated with no health care. Those who go undiagnosed can spread disease to a large section of the population.

Finally, the argument that gov. health care is only useful for the poor seems off to me. Why would it only be in the best interest of the poor? Because the rich could afford otherwise? But surely, the rich could afford a higher class of police service if the same method was used?

What if we ran our fire and police departments the way we run our healthcare? You could get an instant police response if you paid so much for per month, you could get a lowered level of response if you paid less, and no response for those who couldn't pay. (Perhaps, like emergency rooms, we'd allow people with no coverage access to 911 for emergency situations.)

The same goes with fire departments. If your house burns down, and you have no fire insurance/coverage... well, sucks to be you. The fire department might put out the fire to prevent it spreading, but they could then bill you whatever you owed them, even if turned out to be thousands of dollars.

The argument that something is equally useful to poor and rich is a poor one in my mind, because if we were to go straight libertarian, and make everything fee-based, the rich would obviously be able to make more use of such services.

The legitimate role of government can be determined if you remember that “We the People” delegate certain powers to it. I have the “right” to protect my home, therefore I can delegate that right to government in the form of a police force to do it for me.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay my doctor bills. I can not legitimately delegate to government power that I do not possess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

The legitimate role of government can be determined if you remember that “We the People” delegate certain powers to it. I have the “right” to protect my home, therefore I can delegate that right to government in the form of a police force to do it for me.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to force my neighbor to pay my doctor bills. I can not legitimately delegate to government power that I do not possess.

---

Woah woah woah. Step back here.

That "we the people" document also stated the right to "life", liberty and happiness... you can't just take the liberty portion and leave the life out.

You could just as easily say, "I have the RIGHT to live, therefore, I can delegate that right to government in the form of a universal health care bill." Just as one could easily say, "You have the right to protect yourself by buying your own guns, and not making me spend MY money on a police force."

I just think that's a poor argument, regardless of where I stand on the health care bill.

Just because something can be rationed by ability to pay, doesn't mean it should be rationed that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Just because something can be rationed by ability to pay, doesn't mean it should be rationed that way.

---

And currently it is not purely done so. The state has intervened significantly in the provision of health care, and distorted it greatly.

i wonder if there are pro-obamacare darwinists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

i wonder if there are pro-obamacare darwinists?

---

Oh, of course not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Oh, of course not.

---

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

You could just as easily say, "I have the RIGHT to live, therefore, I can delegate that right to government in the form of a universal health care bill." Just as one could easily say, "You have the right to protect yourself by buying your own guns, and not making me spend MY money on a police force."

---

I think the second part of your argument is better than the first, so what then defines the limits of the role of government? If I have the “right” to use government to coerce people to pay for my health care, certainly I have the right to housing and food as well.

My definition of a “right” does not include anything that someone else must provide. I have a right to life. That doesn’t mean I can force someone else to provide me w/ food, shelter, and healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

---

Are you asking if people believe in Darwin's theory? I mean, I agree the theory works, but don't necessarily think we should follow that theory when it comes to policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

I think the second part of your argument is better than the first, so what then defines the limits of the role of government? If I have the “right” to use government to coerce people to pay for my health care, certainly I have the right to housing and food as well.

My definition of a “right” does not include anything that someone else must provide. I have a right to life. That doesn’t mean I can force someone else to provide me w/ food, shelter, and healthcare.

---

I agree with you that the second part of my argument was better.

Technically, if you really wanted to limit the government to libertarian ideals, it'd mostly be there to sign treaties, run the military/national guard, and run the court system, and the state government would run the courts and national guard. That's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Are you asking if people believe in Darwin's theory? I mean, I agree the theory works, but don't necessarily think we should follow that theory when it comes to policy.

---

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now. :tu

---

I was just playing Devil's Advocate there.

Honestly, I'm wondering what you mean by "darwinist". Someone who believes the theory, or someone who thinks that is a good moral theory to live by?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

something tells me quite a bit of people here are going to sidestep that question. oh well.

---

I take it you were referring to 'social' darwinists, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I was just playing Devil's Advocate there.

Honestly, I'm wondering what you mean by "darwinist". Someone who believes the theory, or someone who thinks that is a good moral theory to live by?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I take it you were referring to 'social' darwinists, no?

---

someone who simply believes in "survival of the fittest" in every facet of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

someone who simply believes in "survival of the fittest" in every facet of life.

---

I would be very surprised if the number of liberals who also believe in social darwinism is greater than say... oh... three people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Technically, if you really wanted to limit the government to libertarian ideals, it'd mostly be there to sign treaties, run the military/national guard, and run the court system, and the state government would run the courts and national guard. That's about it.

---

My understanding of libertarian ideals is that it relies on the system of “layered government”. The Federal government would be limited to what is described in the Constitution. States would be free to experiment w/ various laws/programs. Some states would outlaw abortion, some would legalize drugs. The benefit would be 50 individual experiments and we could see what works and what doesn’t.

Is it going to happen?-Nope. The most likely scenario is a disintegration similar to what happened to the U.S.S.R. The differences in culture are growing too far apart between the left and the right for us have such a powerfull centralized govt.

guns = a right = you have the right to buy them

health care = a right = you have the right to buy it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Healthcare is a Good, Not a Right

Congressman Ron Paul
14th District of Texas

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man. Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth. The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians. Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients. As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills. As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.
Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Posted by Ron Paul (07-20-2009, 12:30 PM)

link

---

...says a politician who has some of the best health care in in the country for him and his family.

OK, fuckwit, why don't you start by turning over your policy --and the policy of everyone in your family who may be covered --- to the poorest uninsured constituent you can find.

Have you ever noticed it's only people who can afford to buy health care, or afford to pay the hospital bills if they don't have it, who complain about health care reform? You don't see a lot of poor diabetics who can't afford to buy their insulin without their healthcare plan complaining, hmmm?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...y/1151492.html

HEadline of the story: Poll: Canadians like their health care, despite grumbles

Uh, what was that about people with socialized medicine wanting to go back, Mr. Paul? I thought so. Seriously, what a fuckwit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

So wanting to refrain from engaging in international wars = doesn't want to hold the reigns of Commander in Chief?

---

If that's all he talked about, I'd be fine with it. He wanted to immediately withdraw from Iraq once we were already there. That would have left the region in complete chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

i see. your "life", liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i follow you now. :tu

---

How can someone pursue happiness when the government keeps getting in the way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If that's all he talked about, I'd be fine with it. He wanted to immediately withdraw from Iraq once we were already there. That would have left the region in complete chaos.

---

I think that's kinda the point of an isolationist though. He's gambling that the whole place would go to shit, and they'd fight each other, as they've continued to do for generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...y/1151492.html

---

Quote:

---

New Ipsos/McClatchy online polls find that patients in Canada are indeed much more frustrated by waiting times to see medical specialists than patients in the United States are, and slightly less happy with the waiting times to see their family doctors.

---

Quote:

---

The online polls surveyed 1,004 U.S. adults July 9-14 and 1,010 Canadians on June 5-7. They aren't scientific random samples, don't statistically mirror the population and thus have no margin of error. Rather, they resemble large focus groups to help see what people are thinking about a particular issue.

---

Hardly convincing.

Speaking of "fuckwits."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Speaking of "fuckwits."

---

If this legislation is pushed through (its starting to get dicey), the guy makes a good point.

I cant believe this is even a conversation. With any hope, this will be pushed off until 2010 when jobs are at stake with each signature.

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

If this legislation is pushed through (its starting to get dicey), the guy makes a good point.

---

Sure. The source of the great "cost savings" touted by every half wit with the state's nuts on his chin.

Quote:

---

I cant believe this is even a conversation. With any hope, this will be pushed off until 2010 when jobs are at stake with each signature.

---

At this point, I can. We'll have to go through some regress before true progress can resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

---

I don't think Obama's proposition matches what's currently circulating in Congress right now. And THAT is the problem.
Excerpted from this article:

In recent weeks, polls have shown that a solid majority of Americans support the stated goals of health reform. Most want the uninsured to be covered and want the option of a government-run insurance plan. Yet the polls also show that people are worried about the package emerging from Congress.

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Constitution and use those to form our government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Constitution and use those to form our government?

---

Are you suggesting we're not doing that already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Are you suggesting we're not doing that already?

---

Good. Your vision is not totally obscured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

That seems pretty logical, actually, and is pretty consistently the message I've gotten from my not-statistically valid sample size of friends and acqaintances.

HOWEVER - and this is a big HOWEVER - WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Repeat after me: We are not going to have socialized medicine. For better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Obama has never proposed anything even remotely close to what Canada and Britain have. He has proposed something that is a lot more similar to what Massachusetts currently has: A "uniquely American" hybrid model which includes state-funded health care for the poorest and/or elderly/disabled residents, but also requires the rest of us to have health insurance, either through our employers or through purchasing it. If you purchase it, you have a premium based on your income. If you make less than 35K a year, you get insurance free (Mass Health - state subsidized) to you, if you make more, you get bumped up to Commonwealth Care, which offers a wide variety of plans depending on your needs and for pretty reasonable premiums.

In case you're interested, my employer offers insurance through Tufts, so that's what I have.

---

Do you have any clue as to what is happening in Mass. because if you did, it would be extremely illogical to point to that system as a model of reform. They are going broke and dropping people from the plan, The hospitals and Doctors are now suing the states for lack of payments, etc...

As a matter of fact, the Mass. plan is being used as an example of a failure by those who do not want government take over healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Polls are great. How about we scrap the Constitution and use those to form our government?

---

Didn't you hear? The United States Constitution is a living breathing document meant to be altered according to the public opinion of the current time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Here's what friends in Canada and London have told me about their state-funded, universal health care: "It's great in an emergency, because you can be seen anywhere, anytime. It's a pain for a regular appointment because it often takes a long time. But it's definitely worth it."

---

Everybody in the US can get emergency care anytime and in any hospital. So, how is this better or different from the system we already have?

Clearly, your friends mention how long a wait time it is for a regular appointment thereby validating the views of opponents to the reform bill. So , how does it make sense to pass a bill that will bring us longer waiting times to see a Dr. for a regular appointment? I don't see how this improves our health care in the US. This would be tantamount to rationing which even the experts admit will have to occur under this reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

Everybody in the US can get emergency care anytime and in any hospital. So, how is this better or different from the system we already have?

---

THIS is exactly what is contributing to the financial decline of our country. Because poor people with no health insurance go to the ER whenever they are sick - BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. It is about 200 times more expensive to be seen in the ER than to have regular doctor's appts and preventative care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

Do you have any clue as to what is happening in Mass. because if you did, it would be extremely illogical to point to that system as a model of reform. They are going broke and dropping people from the plan, The hospitals and Doctors are now suing the states for lack of payments, etc...

As a matter of fact, the Mass. plan is being used as an example of a failure by those who do not want government take over healthcare.

---

Uh...links? Because I LIVE in Massachusetts and have lived here for the last decade. Not only that I WORK in the health care industry and see the ins and outs of it on a daily basis.

We have financial problems like every other state in the country, but people are not being dropped by insurance and while our current model has signficant problems to work out, it is FAR BETTER than anything else any other state in the country has right now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html

Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care
By ABBY GOODNOUGH


Published: July 15, 2009
BOSTON — A hospital that serves thousands of indigent Massachusetts residents sued the state on Wednesday, charging that its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.
The hospital, Boston Medical Center, faces a $38 million deficit for the fiscal year ending in September, its first loss in five years. The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.
“We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.”
The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents. Three years after the law’s passage, Massachusetts has the country’s lowest percentage of uninsured residents: 2.6 percent, compared with a national average of 15 percent.
Low-income residents, who have benefited most from expanded access to health care, receive state-subsidized insurance, one of the most expensive aspects of the state plan. But rapidly rising costs and the battered economy have caused more problems than the state and supporters of the 2006 law — including Boston Medical — anticipated.
According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured — down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents.
One of the state’s reimbursement rates to Boston Medical, dropped from $12, 476 in 2008 to $9,323 by 2009, the suit says.
Wendy E. Parmet, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, said the suit was “a step in a wider minuet” as state lawmakers, health care providers and other stakeholders try to figure out how to make the new law work in the long term.
“I think it’s going to be a very hard lawsuit for them to prevail on,” Professor Parmet said of the hospital. “I think they’re trying to bring another weapon into what is essentially, in many ways, a political and economic battle going on in the state about how to pay for health care, and making sure their voice gets heard.”
The suit comes as Congress looks to Massachusetts as a potential model for overhauling the nation’s health care system. Even before the suit, the state’s fiscal crisis had cast doubts on the law’s sustainability.
To help close a growing deficit, the Democratic-controlled Legislature eliminated coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants in the new state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking to restore about half of the $130 million cut, but lawmakers have expressed reluctance, saying that doing so would require cuts to other important programs.
State officials expressed surprise at the lawsuit, saying that Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year and should not be seeking more in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
“At a time when everyone funded and served by state government is being asked to do more with less, B.M.C. has been treated no differently,” said Dr. JudyAnn Bigby, the state secretary of health and human services, in a prepared statement. “We are confident that the administration’s actions in this area comply with all applicable law and will be upheld.”
State officials have suggested that Boston Medical could reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The state has also pointed out that the hospital has reserves of about $190 million, but Tom Traylor, the hospital’s vice president of federal and state programs, said the reserves could only sustain the hospital for about a year.
“The magnitude of the loss here can’t be solved on the program-cutting or expense-cutting side,” Mr. Traylor said. Professor Parmet said the hospital’s dissatisfaction with the new law should be a warning to Congress that “insurance alone doesn’t solve the problems” of the health care system. In fact, she said, it might exacerbate the financial problems of safety-net hospitals in the short term.
Katie Zezima contributed reporting

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html

Posted links-figured out how to post them instead of entire articles.:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

It is about 200 times more expensive to be seen in the ER than to have regular doctor's appts and preventative care.

---

Welcome, Supergirl, to 1994.

200 times is gross exaggeration and hyperbole - and many ER's have attached clinics, run much like normal doctor's offices for non-emergency services.