Modern republicanism is much more big government than their counterparts across the aisle.

NOW do you see that Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running?

Newsflash: government involvement in health care is going to get bigger in the next 10 years, and that's the only thing that can keep our health care sector afloat, unless you really want to pay the full cost of any medical procedure out of your own pocket.

That is because they are looking at polls and see that people want affordable healthcare, but they will not do anything about it once in office

/seriously, repubs do you think anyone believes you?

LocalCynic: Newsflash: government involvement in health care is going to get bigger in the next 10 years, and that's the only thing that can keep our health care sector afloat, unless you really want to pay the full cost of any medical procedure out of your own pocket.

This. As little as I want government going anywhere near another cash debacle, we're dealing with an untenable situation here. Public health as a for-profit enterprise has made a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath and is one of our biggest failures as a society.

ScubaDude1960: NOW do you see that Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running?

As someone that's not a particular fan of Ron Paul, I have to say this. The US Republican Party is only socially conservative. Both parties want your money, it's just a question of whether you want it spent on things that improve your quality of life, or funding someone else's dreams of global control.

So they're expanding MedicAID, big whoop, wanna fight about it?



/seriously, take your 'socialism' crap and shove it

My dad is a Christian and a moderate conservative (thankfully not a crazy), and while he's no fan of Michael Moore, he does agree with one thing Moore said: "Socialized medicine should really be called Christianized medicine".

And if that is true, then if the Republicans are really dead-set upon proving who has the bigger Christian penis, why are they so against socialized medicine?

Time marches on.

That's why it's called "progress".

You watch, ten maybe twenty years down the line, nobody but the most hardline religionists are going to give a phlying phuque whether gays get married or not.

And a few decades after that, they'll start spouting some bullschitt rhetoric about how they were never against it, just like they were "never" against interracial marriage.

The Republicans realized four things long ago: 1) people like tax cuts and low taxes, 2) people like to hear politicians talk about the evils of big government and the virtues of individual responsibility, 3) people like general calls for cutting government spending but get pissy when they get specific about which programs and sectors will get cut, and 4) people like when the government gives them things.

Is it any wonder that Republican presidents never shrink the size of the government and usually create enormous deficits?

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Time marches on.

That's why it's called "progress".

You watch, ten maybe twenty years down the line, nobody but the most hardline religionists are going to give a phlying phuque whether gays get married or not.

And a few decades after that, they'll start spouting some bullschitt rhetoric about how they were never against it, just like they were "never" against interracial marriage.

This

Arxane: "Socialized medicine should really be called Christianized medicine".

Supply-Side Jesus disagrees:

They are discussing flood, not health, insurance.

ScubaDude1960: NOW do you see that Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running?

Wait, so Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate in either parties who WON'T help Americans get the affordable health care they need? YOU'VE FINALLY CONVINCED ME! GO RON PAUL!

Politank-Z: They are discussing flood, not health, insurance.

Eh...well I'll go sit in the corner for making assumptions.

Wait, that won't do...I'll just divert the attention somewhere else.

WHAT'S A GOVERNCENT SUBBY????

Yeah, the Indians really prize their socialized medicine on the reservations. And the veterans, too, they love the wide range of choices they get through the system of VA hospitals.

Creating more incentives in the private sector for charitable donations would go a long way toward curing our social ills. Private organizations make much better use of their money than the government does.

KC Critic: Yeah, the Indians really prize their socialized medicine on the reservations. And the veterans, too, they love the wide range of choices they get through the system of VA hospitals.

Are you implying that if the whole country went single-payer that the government would run all hospitals? Heh...that's cute.

KC Critic: Yeah, the Indians really prize their socialized medicine on the reservations. And the veterans, too, they love the wide range of choices they get through the system of VA hospitals.

Creating more incentives in the private sector for charitable donations would go a long way toward curing our social ills. Private organizations make much better use of their money than the government does.

That's funny, were I bleeding to death from a gunshot wound, I would prefer that the ambulance drive right past one of my local hospitals to take me to the one on the rez. But you just keep painting everything with that one all-purpose brush you seem hellbent on carrying around.

I'm not even touching your charitable contributions concept. Anyone who actually believes that Americans will come up off of enough money to keep the populace healthy by any means other than held-at-gunpoint taxation isn't competent enough for rational discourse.

KC Critic: Yeah, the Indians really prize their socialized medicine on the reservations. And the veterans, too, they love the wide range of choices they get through the system of VA hospitals.

Creating more incentives in the private sector for charitable donations would go a long way toward curing our social ills. Private organizations make much better use of their money than the government does.

Uh, then why does the US pay more per person for health care than any other country?

Health care is simply not something that can stay private. Costs are skyrocketing, and eventually the gov't will have to take control.

Of course, the gov't wouldn't be that inefficient if average people actually gave a fark and held their politicians accountable, instead of voting for the guy they'd like to have a beer with.

But, that would be work. It's easier for lazy folks like you to just yell for tax cuts and reductions to programs that don't benefit you.

Shaggy_C: Are you implying that if the whole country went single-payer that the government would run all hospitals? Heh...that's cute.

If he's not saying it, I sure will.

If the government ends up paying for health care, there will be intense regulation on hospitals. I see no difference in the government legislating the policy of the hospital vs. the government running the hospital.

FuriousGeorge945: The Republicans realized four things long ago: 1) people like tax cuts and low taxes, 2) people like to hear politicians talk about the evils of big government and the virtues of individual responsibility, 3) people like general calls for cutting government spending but get pissy when they get specific about which programs and sectors will get cut, and 4) people like when the government gives them things.

Is it any wonder that Republican presidents never shrink the size of the government and usually create enormous deficits?

BINGO.

Ask people whether government should cut spending, and you get an emphatic YES!

Go over the budget with the average citizen, and you'll maybe manage to get them to agree to cutting 1 or 2%. Go over it with someone else and they'll pick a different tiny bit to cut. The people who DO want to cut big chunks all want to cut DIFFERENT chunks (defense, schools, Social Security [not that that would help the general budget anyway]). Result? Nothing ever gets cut. Even the stuff that pretty much everyone agrees on cutting probably doesn't top 1% of the budget ("Pork", assistance to the nearly-mythical "welfare queens")

See, when you don't follow the Constitution, which very clearly limits the power of government, this will happen.

They might as well be claiming that every American has the right to a 50" plasma TV.

"OMG it's unenumerated!"

List of things the government does well:


List of things people want the government to do for them:

everything.

How this will end:

poorly.

Mastervader: Costs are skyrocketing, and eventually the gov't will have to take control.

Then why doesn't the government take control of Sony plasma screen TVs and magically lower the price?

After all, you seem to think the pricing is totally fake and/or arbitrary.

If so, then I'll be waiting for that plasma.

USP .45: See, when you don't follow the Constitution, which very clearly limits the power of government, this will happen.

They might as well be claiming that every American has the right to a 50" plasma TV.

"OMG it's unenumerated!"

Do you believe that every human being should have access to the best possible medical care, regardless of social status?

USP .45: They might as well be claiming that every American has the right to a 50" plasma TV.

Technically, you do have the right to a 50" plasma TV. It's just that the government isn't required to give it to you.

Healthcare... yeah... no different. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Occam's Chainsaw: Do you believe that every human being should have access to the best possible medical care, regardless of social status?

You're misunderstanding what he's saying and your question is misleading. If you're asking SHOULD, then the answer is yes, they should.

If you're asking SHOULD IT BE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT, you'll get a different answer.

Occam's Chainsaw: Do you believe that every human being should have access to the best possible medical care, regardless of social status?

Insomuch as every human being should "have access" to 50" plasma screen TVs.

USP .45: Occam's Chainsaw: Do you believe that every human being should have access to the best possible medical care, regardless of social status?

Insomuch as every human being should "have access" to 50" plasma screen TVs.

So you consider health care to be equivalent to 50" plasma TVs as far as maintaining a basic standard of living? And you feel that just as in the case of 50" plasma TVs, only those who can afford health care or are willing to drive themselves into debt should get health care?

sarcastrophe: If the government ends up paying for health care, there will be intense regulation on hospitals. I see no difference in the government legislating the policy of the hospital vs. the government running the hospital.

How would there be more regulation than there is today with the insurance industry? It's still a matter of a competitive bidding process; in all likelihood hospitals/doctors would have a base price that they could charge for services...but they have that already to get insurance contracts and become part of the 'network' for a patient. Plus there is the fact that elective work would be paid for out of pocket still, so there would still be competitive market forces at play out there. Really, if you're so rich that you think this would ruin your healthcare, why don't you just shell out the money and go to some specialty doctor? One of the big problems with a VA hospital is that the VAs can't go anywhere else.

KC Critic: Private organizations make much better use of their money than the government does.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain why my water bill is almost three times what it used to be before privatization less than a decade ago.

Occam's Chainsaw: So you consider health care to be equivalent to 50" plasma TVs as far as maintaining a basic standard of living?

Unless '50" plasma' is a synonym for 'health care,' then no, they're aren't equivalent. I think that's pretty clear.

And you feel that just as in the case of 50" plasma TVs, only those who can afford health care or are willing to drive themselves into debt should get health care?

Yes, because I'm not under the false impression that anyone, including the government could distribute 50" plasma TVs to every man, woman, and child at MSRP, much less a discounted price.

Shaggy_C: sarcastrophe: If the government ends up paying for health care, there will be intense regulation on hospitals. I see no difference in the government legislating the policy of the hospital vs. the government running the hospital.

How would there be more regulation than there is today with the insurance industry? It's still a matter of a competitive bidding process; in all likelihood hospitals/doctors would have a base price that they could charge for services...but they have that already to get insurance contracts and become part of the 'network' for a patient. Plus there is the fact that elective work would be paid for out of pocket still, so there would still be competitive market forces at play out there. Really, if you're so rich that you think this would ruin your healthcare, why don't you just shell out the money and go to some specialty doctor? One of the big problems with a VA hospital is that the VAs can't go anywhere else.

I read your post as an argument that a government single-payer system is different than government run hospitals. I assert that there is no difference between the two. My available options are irrelevant to what you posited.

If, in the current system, the insurance companies are controlling healthcare, how do you argue that the government won't take over that responsibility when they take over? You've defeated your own argument.

Since everyone else is speaking in broad generalities, I will too.

I absolutely agree there's often an unacceptable amount of waste in government programs, and that's true of social programs on up to the Pentagon.

Privatization adds the profit margin to the equation, which means another hand dipping into the consumer's pocket. Now, in theory, this should be more than offset by the higher efficiency of the private sector, but that's simply not true across the board. For example, the money pharmaceutical companies waste would make Ted Stevens blush.

Are some private sector companies more efficient than their government counterparts? Absolutely. Are they all? Absolutely not.

USP .45: Occam's Chainsaw: So you consider health care to be equivalent to 50" plasma TVs as far as maintaining a basic standard of living?

Unless '50" plasma' is a synonym for 'health care,' then no, they're aren't equivalent. I think that's pretty clear.

And you feel that just as in the case of 50" plasma TVs, only those who can afford health care or are willing to drive themselves into debt should get health care?

Yes, because I'm not under the false impression that anyone, including the government could distribute 50" plasma TVs to every man, woman, and child at MSRP, much less a discounted price.

I think you're confusing can with will. Can the government provide better health care than our current system? Yes. Would it? Probably not. Regardless, something has to be done. If you honestly believe that the current system works, I suggest you consider eating your moniker.

The Why Not Guy: Are some private sector companies more efficient than their government counterparts? Absolutely. Are they all? Absolutely not.

OK, but are you willing to disrupt the current failed system to replace it with a government system which may or may not fail? Based on past experiences of government competency, I would say no.

Keep in mind that once you go to socialized healthcare, there really is no path back. Once it is instituted, it's pretty much there to stay... just like all the other failed government programs.

The better idea is to identify the problems with the current failed program and address the source of the problem. Or alternatively, build a new free market program to replace the current clusterfark. We currently have the option to replace the current disaster, because it's not in government hands.

Again, once the government takes control of it, there is no turning back.

The Why Not Guy: Are some private sector companies more efficient than their government counterparts? Absolutely. Are they all? Absolutely not.

Yes, and sadly, because the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government, even if they could provide a service more efficiently than the private sector, it wouldn't be constitutional.

Unless of course were just going to continue to walk all over the thing.

Occam's Chainsaw: Regardless, something has to be done. If you honestly believe that the current system works...

There we agree.

I just don't follow up with, "ergo, the government," as a conclusion.

sarcastrophe: If, in the current system, the insurance companies are controlling healthcare, how do you argue that the government won't take over that responsibility when they take over? You've defeated your own argument.

My argument is that the two are essentially the same, and as such you will not see any apparent degradation of service. When you switch insurance companies, do you get stuck going to a 'crappy' doctor with one as opposed to the other?

sarcastrophe: OK, but are you willing to disrupt the current failed system to replace it with a government system which may or may not fail?

No, I'm not. But I have a better reason for my decision than KC's ridiculous claim that the private sector is always more efficient.

Shaggy_C: My argument is that the two are essentially the same, and as such you will not see any apparent degradation of service. When you switch insurance companies, do you get stuck going to a 'crappy' doctor with one as opposed to the other?

If the two are the same, then why bother changing it? In fact, based on historical failures of government, I'm leary to let them control anything, not to mention, again, that once the government controls it, there will forever be no other option.

The Why Not Guy: No, I'm not. But I have a better reason for my decision than KC's ridiculous claim that the private sector is always more efficient.

OK. I see your point. KC has some odd logic. I tend to agree with him on many points, but completely disagree with the logic that gets him to the result... which is the boat you're in.

USP .45: Occam's Chainsaw: Regardless, something has to be done. If you honestly believe that the current system works...

There we agree.

I just don't follow up with, "ergo, the government," as a conclusion.

Neither do I, assuming there's a better proposition. We've already seen how the current method is a gigantic failure. Mass charity is equally laughable. So, what options are we left with?

The Why Not Guy: I have a better reason for my decision than KC's ridiculous claim that the private sector is always more efficient.

Then why don't we see private companies, who strive for efficiency, adopting governmental methodologies?

Because they strive for efficiency.

Now, say dozens of private sector companies need to work collaboratively for the national defense, etc, etc, then the government would likely be the best logistical manager. I'll give you that.

USP .45: Yes, and sadly, because the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government, even if they could provide a service more efficiently than the private sector, it wouldn't be constitutional.

Over the past several years Republicans have excused, ignored, or even defended things like warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act and even torture. But when the topic turns to health care they suddenly care about what's Constitutional.

That may or may not apply to you personally, but our friends on the Right side of the aisle don't seem to realize the Constitution is the law of the land - always, not just when it's convenient to shoot the other side down.

sarcastrophe: If the two are the same, then why bother changing it?

Cost and universality. A nonprofit government system doesn't have to meet a 'bottom line' aside from breaking even (no profit margin to worry about for shareholders) and overhead cost due to the fact that billing is all done through one singular entity.

I'll give you a quick example on the 'overhead' issue:
Currently, I go to the doctor and show them my insurance card. I get work done. I don't pay any copay. Now, the doctor's office sends the bill to the insurance company. The insurance company checks to see where I stand as far as my deductible usage for the year (I pay first $1000 dollars). If I owe money personally, they send me a letter telling me about it, and send that info back to the doctor. The doctor then sends me a bill directly which I must pay.

Now, in a single-payer system, I go to the doctor and get work done. The doctor's office enters it into the official ledger (similar to tax reporting methods today). Like taxes, this info is sent to the government administration. In return, they get their weekly/monthly/whatever time bucket check to cover services administered over that period.

We just eliminated a lot of middle men which cost a lot of money. At least, that's the argument. I'm still not convinced completely, but in theory it sounds like it has true economic benefit. Not to mention the fact that it guarantees everyone coverage - and is that not the true measure of a society?

But the true measure of any society is not the lifestyle of the best in that society - The pharoahs had palaces; the Romans had the coliseum - no, our worth as a people is measured by the very worst-off among us. That, my friend, is why we are better than those who came before us.

The Why Not Guy: Over the past several years Republicans have excused, ignored, or even defended things like warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act and even torture. But when the topic turns to health care they suddenly care about what's Constitutional.

That may or may not apply to you personally, but our friends on the Right side of the aisle don't seem to realize the Constitution is the law of the land - always, not just when it's convenient to shoot the other side down.

I agree. You're assuming that you have to be republican to be against socialized health care. That's a bad assumption.

1. All A's are C's
2. All B's are C's
3. All A's are B's wrong

USP .45: Because they strive for efficiency.


Then I'll ask you the same question I asked KC - why is my water bill close to three times what it used to be less than ten years ago, before privatization? I live less then 6 blocks from the Niagara River, part of the Great Lakes system which is the largest supply of fresh water in the world, so drought isn't the issue here, nor is inflation - unless I missed a decade of 30% annual inflation, and I'm pretty sure I didn't.

When you paint with too broad a brush, you miss a lot of spots.

USP .45: The Why Not Guy: I have a better reason for my decision than KC's ridiculous claim that the private sector is always more efficient.

Then why don't we see private companies, who strive for efficiency, adopting governmental methodologies?

Because they strive for efficiency.

Now, say dozens of private sector companies need to work collaboratively for the national defense, etc, etc, then the government would likely be the best logistical manager. I'll give you that.

Not to obnoxiously quibble on points, but private companies do not strive for efficiency. They strive for profits. If inefficiency creates additional profits, they'll embrace it whole-heartedly. Thusly the current disaster. The insurance companies make more money by taking your payments and not providing a service than they would by taking your payments and providing a service.

/Nice grouping, by the way. Done with your namesake?