Way to ignore the huge problem of greedy health insurance companies who routinely deny care to...wait for it...sick people, Will. The problem of health care is not only that the costs rise at several times the rate of inflation. A major component of the problem is that you get LESS or even inadequate care for the insurance you do manage to buy. What Americans want is access to health care, when needed, that won't bankrupt them when it's anything more than a simple fever. To ignore the role that insurance companies play in the health care crisis is simply lying by omission.

George Will is actually one of the more intelligent conservative editorialist/pundits out there, which makes me suspect that his constant deliberate ignoring of facts and realities that contradict his arguments, cherry-picking, and distortions must leave him riddled with guilt, self-loathing, and deep, disquieting unease. I actually feel sorry for the guy.

I just want my insurance to stop re-defining their "network" and acting as if all doctors are equal and interchangeable. They're trying to force me to stop seeing one of my very good doctors who I have a multi-year relationship with because they redefined their parameters and he doesn't fall under my current plan. He fits in OTHER plans the same company offers, now, but I can only change my insurance between November and December of any calendar year.

I'm in the middle of care for something. They essentially shrugged and said "find a new doctor, any doctor can care for illnesses or do procedures and tests." Sure... unless you happen to find one who isn't as good, as thorough, or has a crappy bedside manner.

I'm so tired of shenanigans like that. They take a good chunk out of every paycheck for this plan -- I chose it because all my doctors were in it, and pay more than many people who work where I do as a result. I think it's things like that, plus the attempts to dodge payments for pre-certified surgeries (they tried to claim cancer than was discovered via a biopsy after I had the insurance was "pre-existing," for example) or the whole "pre-existing condition" thing... it's a nightmare.

And things like what I am dealing with concerning my doctor are increasingly common. THIS is what most people I talk to would like to see changed. I really would rather not have nameless, faceless people who have never met me, or dealt with my health history, who work for an entity entirely dedicated to making money from me deciding what I can and can't do with regards to my health; I'd rather have that in the hands of my doctors, go figure.

What I really want is for all the "health insurance" companies to DIAF.

last time in the hospital they charged me 90 bucks for Tylenol. Not a bottle mind you. 2 Tylenol. those little paper cups are really expensive I'm guessing.

Pocket Ninja: George Will is actually one of the more intelligent conservative editorialist/pundits out there, which makes me suspect that his constant deliberate ignoring of facts and realities that contradict his arguments, cherry-picking, and distortions must leave him riddled with guilt, self-loathing, and deep, disquieting unease. I actually feel sorry for the guy.

That's not his conservatism. He's Cubs fan.

Marcus Aurelius: What I really want is for all the "health insurance" companies to DIAF.

I have a socialized police department, a socialized fire department, a socialized mail service, socialized schooling for kids, and a socialized highway system, but if I get socialized healthcare the communists win?

deadapostle: Marcus Aurelius: What I really want is for all the "health insurance" companies to DIAF.

I have a socialized police department, a socialized fire department, a socialized mail service, socialized schooling for kids, and a socialized highway system, but if I get socialized healthcare the communists win?

False equivalency.

1960s prices? You mean before the hospitals started charging $14.00 each for Tylenol tablets? HELL YEAH!

Nabb1: False equivalency.

Market failures are market failures. Same stuff.

I'm a Canadian, but I'm NOT going to gloat about our healthcare system. Because for all the wonderful coverage we get up here, we also have huge wait times because when you don't pay a bill from the hospital, you go to the doctor for everything - EVERYTHING - and that places a huge load on the system.

So both ways of doing things have their flaws. serpent_sky, I'd love to see your lack of waiting, (I'm assuming that you didn't wait two years to even see a doctor, for instance) and I bet you'd love to see our lack of BS. I wish I was smart enough to really see a way to fix these things.

That's all, I guess. Not really contributing much, just adding my 2 cents.

Nabb1: False equivalency.

How?

hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: False equivalency.

Market failures are market failures. Same stuff.

Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable? And mail service may be subsidized, but it's hardly "socialized." How many times in your life have you (a) called the police, (b) called the fire department, (c) gone to the doctor, filled a prescription, etc.?

I would like a national health care system but I am afraid of the legislation. At the current moment there is too much influence from insurance company, pharma and others to make any new laws anything but a big screw over for the American public.

Nabb1: Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable?

Why trust the government to run so many parts of your life, and then turn your nose up at healthcare? They regulate what foods are safe to eat, they provide for your safety, they provide your roads, schooling, and information transportation. All socialist enterprises. They run the military, and you trust them to do that. Why is the line suddenly drawn at healthcare?

Nabb1: Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable?

Healthcare is administered by a group of people with highly specialized knowledge- there is a huge discrepancy in information.

Healthcare is quite often demanded no matter what the cost- the market fails when money becomes no object.

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: False equivalency.

Market failures are market failures. Same stuff.

Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable? And mail service may be subsidized, but it's hardly "socialized." How many times in your life have you (a) called the police, (b) called the fire department, (c) gone to the doctor, filled a prescription, etc.?

How about socialized military, then? That is closer to the scale of what we're talking about.

GAT_00: Nabb1: False equivalency.

How?

Mail service is not "socialized." The cost is not born equally by all who use it. You pay rates for what you mail. The more you mail, the more you pay. It's heavily subsidized in order to provide cheap bulk mail services that even UPS and FedEx can't compete with because of the high barriers to market entry, but it's hardly "socialized."

Police departments provide a necessary function of law enforcement. Furthermore, the services they provide are of an entirely different nature than health care. Fire Departments are similar in the provide a public service that the vast majority of the public won't ever directly use, but the specialized service they provide also serves a public safety purpose in regards to the imminent danger to persons and property from uncontrolled fires.

Public education - while this is more appropriately a "socialized" institution, in practical respects it simply pools resources and distributes them in a more efficient manner than if everyone simply hired tutors. Providing compulsory education is an easier thing to accomplish than providing medical care, anyway, given that you can provide education in a more or less uniform manner to large groups of people than you can with health care, which has the added wrinkle of sometimes consuming far more resources.

Again, a conservative argument against helath care which completely ignores that fact that it works in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WHERE ITS TRIED.

Empiricism is not really their strong suit.

deadapostle: Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: False equivalency.

Market failures are market failures. Same stuff.

Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable? And mail service may be subsidized, but it's hardly "socialized." How many times in your life have you (a) called the police, (b) called the fire department, (c) gone to the doctor, filled a prescription, etc.?

How about socialized military, then? That is closer to the scale of what we're talking about.

There has been no more misunderstood and abused term in politics in the past six months than "socialized." The military is not "socialized." The GM and Chrysler bailouts are not "socialist." TARP is not "socialist." The Democrats are not "socialists." The mail is not "socialized."

DamnYankees: Again, a conservative argument against helath care which completely ignores that fact that it works in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WHERE ITS TRIED.

Empiricism is not really their strong suit.

Why don't you try actually rebutting the actual points of the article? Don't argue about "empiricism" if you're not even going to address the salient points of the piece.

Nabb1: Why don't you try actually rebutting the actual points of the article? Don't argue about "empiricism" if you're not even going to address the salient points of the piece.

What argument? I read it over and didn't really see a very specific one to rebut. The entire thing was a generalized ideological rant.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Why don't you try actually rebutting the actual points of the article? Don't argue about "empiricism" if you're not even going to address the salient points of the piece.

What argument? I read it over and didn't really see a very specific one to rebut. The entire thing was a generalized ideological rant.

Weak.

Nabb1: Weak.

What happened to you, man? You were one of the intelligent conservatives here. You had arguments and opinions. Recently you've been really slipping into Weaver mode, where everything is an ideological insult without any substance to the argument. I usually enjoy arguing with you, but recently I haven't seen much to tangle with.

Nabb1: "socialized."

So, you're going to point out little distinctions? Well, government health care won't be socialism either, the doctors will still be independent and private health care will still exist, so it isn't socialism either.

Nabb1: There has been no more misunderstood and abused term in politics in the past six months than "socialized." The military is not "socialized." The GM and Chrysler bailouts are not "socialist." TARP is not "socialist." The Democrats are not "socialists." The mail is not "socialized."

That may have been true, but modern usage of the term has added a new meaning of socialism.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Weak.

What happened to you, man? You were one of the intelligent conservatives here. You had arguments and opinions. Recently you've been really slipping into Weaver mode, where everything is an ideological insult without any substance to the argument. I usually enjoy arguing with you, but recently I haven't seen much to tangle with.

Excuse me? You just said there was no specific point to rebut. You come in here lobbing the usual tired out talking points, which I would expect from some people. I expect more of you. That response was drivel. That's twice in the span of a few posts you've dismissed something as "ideological" without offering any reference to a single solitary fact upon which to base your argument. Has the fact that most Farkers are dogmatically, zealously pro-UHC made you lazy on the topic?

DamnYankees: What happened to you, man? You were one of the intelligent conservatives here. You had arguments and opinions. Recently you've been really slipping into Weaver mode, where everything is an ideological insult without any substance to the argument. I usually enjoy arguing with you, but recently I haven't seen much to tangle with.

Maybe the Iranian government arrested him and replaced him with a government mole.

/too soon?

Nabb1: hillbillypharmacist: Nabb1: False equivalency.

Market failures are market failures. Same stuff.

Explain. How are any of those things remotely similar or even comparable? And mail service may be subsidized, but it's hardly "socialized." How many times in your life have you (a) called the police, (b) called the fire department, (c) gone to the doctor, filled a prescription, etc.?

Mail service is socialized by any definition that doesn't just make something up out of whole cloth. It's a government entity providing a service and setting its prices by fiat.

Police and fire both provide emergency life saving measures and nowadays also provide other services within the community, including things which can enhance longevity (they're usually involved in community fitness plans, for example). And a good doctor educates his patients, so there's your school stuff.

In all of these cases, they are government agencies with large measures of autonomy that are able to determine how they will best meet community needs under broad guidelines from the government bodies they represent.

Given these facts about the way these organizations are run, how is placing health care under similar government agencies a nightmare scenario?

Nabb1: Why don't you try actually rebutting the actual points of the article? Don't argue about "empiricism" if you're not even going to address the salient points of the piece.

The salient point of the article appears to ignore the sea change in the way health care is provided in this country that took place under the Nixon administration when he said "C'mon in, boys!" to HMO organizations and added a whole industry designed to profit from denying coverage to people who have paid them in good faith.

GAT_00: Nabb1: "socialized."

So, you're going to point out little distinctions? Well, government health care won't be socialism either, the doctors will still be independent and private health care will still exist, so it isn't socialism either.

I didn't say it would be. I think that people on both sides of this debate who use that word probably don't know what "socialized" means.

Nabb1: Excuse me? You just said there was no specific point to rebut. You come in here lobbing the usual tired out talking points, which I would expect from some people. I expect more of you. That response was drivel. That's twice in the span of a few posts you've dismissed something as "ideological" without offering any reference to a single solitary fact upon which to base your argument. Has the fact that most Farkers are dogmatically, zealously pro-UHC made you lazy on the topic?

I made my point in my Boobies - Will completely ignores the fact that this works in other countries and instead goes on a tantrum about how Americans are just whiny. I'm not going to go hunting for arguments you think I should rebut. If there's an argument you want me to answer, post it. Otherwise, address my argument or just ignore me.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Excuse me? You just said there was no specific point to rebut. You come in here lobbing the usual tired out talking points, which I would expect from some people. I expect more of you. That response was drivel. That's twice in the span of a few posts you've dismissed something as "ideological" without offering any reference to a single solitary fact upon which to base your argument. Has the fact that most Farkers are dogmatically, zealously pro-UHC made you lazy on the topic?

I made my point in my Boobies - Will completely ignores the fact that this works in other countries and instead goes on a tantrum about how Americans are just whiny. I'm not going to go hunting for arguments you think I should rebut. If there's an argument you want me to answer, post it. Otherwise, address my argument or just ignore me.

Oh, right the "IT WORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES" line. You dismissed Will's entire argument with a FARK cliche. You really should know better.

stonner: I'm a Canadian, but I'm NOT going to gloat about our healthcare system. Because for all the wonderful coverage we get up here, we also have huge wait times because when you don't pay a bill from the hospital, you go to the doctor for everything - EVERYTHING - and that places a huge load on the system.

I'm an Australian and i AM going to gloat about our healthcare system because even though there might be a wait on this and that at least EVERYONE gets healthcare. I don't have have to piss my bed bed whilst dying of cancer, mid-fight with some fat asshole whose hardest day job was pocketing my health insurance cheques without providing an ounce of care.

I have health insurance because frankly i can afford it, but I also have the option of free healthcare if i need it -- and that is fuking-fan-tastic.

Nabb1: Oh, right the "IT WORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES" line. You dismissed Will's entire argument with a FARK cliche. You really should know better.

It's quite telling that you think comparisons to other countries is a Fark cliche.

DamnYankees: I made my point in my Boobies

It was a very sexy point.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Oh, right the "IT WORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES" line. You dismissed Will's entire argument with a FARK cliche. You really should know better.

It's quite telling that you think comparisons to other countries is a Fark cliche.

It's more telling that you think it's the automatic response to every criticism on the issue.

Nabb1: It's more telling that you think it's the automatic response to every criticism on the issue.

Can you please point out an argument in TFA which you would like me to address? Like I said, I'm not going to go hunting for possible arguments you would like me to rebut. I'm more than happy to debate the issues, but I actually need to know what the issue is first.

Countries with Universal Health Care (new window)

Iraq and Afghanistan have universal health care. Guess who pays for it.

stonner: It was a very sexy point.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: It's more telling that you think it's the automatic response to every criticism on the issue.

Can you please point out an argument in TFA which you would like me to address? Like I said, I'm not going to go hunting for possible arguments you would like me to rebut. I'm more than happy to debate the issues, but I actually need to know what the issue is first.

You dismissed the article as an "ideological rant." You explain it.

Nabb1: You dismissed the article as an "ideological rant." You explain it.

The entire tone of the article is that Americans are whiny who don't know how good they have it and want more than they can have. There's no real argument in there, just a bunch of statements about how we pay more for healthcare now than we used to. That's really it. I don't see any argument in there beyond that. If you want to quite something in there which is an "argument", feel free. Until then, the article is just a whine.

snuff3r: stonner: It was a very sexy point.

DUDE! I said that! Why is stonner getting quoted with my wise words?

Nabb1: It's more telling that you think it's the automatic response to every criticism on the issue.

We are the only 1st world country to not provide government health care, as backed up by map a couple of posts below yours. It works quite fine for ALL of those countries, yet it will destroy our entire country? I don't think so. How is it not a valid counterpoint to show where it works?

I didn't say it would be. I think that people on both sides of this debate who use that word probably don't know what "socialized" means.

There has been a lot of that lately. I don't think it is socialism either, I've just had to adopt that point to show all the other near-socialism in this country to people who just parrot talking points. And so, my apologies to you.

Near-socialism isn't really a good description, but it's Sunday, so I'll let it slide.

GAT_00: There has been a lot of that lately. I don't think it is socialism either, I've just had to adopt that point to show all the other near-socialism in this country to people who just parrot talking points. And so, my apologies to you.

No problem. Just every time I read or hear the word I think of Inigo Montoya.

I have to go. My sleeping eight-month-old woke up and keeps reaching for the keyboard. It took me three minutes to write this.

I will vote against universal health care for the exact same reason I voted against removing the state sales tax: There's no way to pay for it.

If Mass. had removed the state sales tax, how the hell would we have supported all the welfare idiots, illegals and other assorted nutjobs leeching the state budget for all it's worth?

My view of what would happen with health care is similar: We would either have to go massively into debt to pay for all of it, or cut physician/pharmacist/researcher salaries to realistic levels, thus removing any and all monetary incentive to work in the field. While there would still be many people who genuinely cared for whether we lived or died, would you want someone who just lost half their pay to be responsible for your life? Do you think teachers making 35k care as much about a child's education as teachers making 50-60k at a private school?

As long as the US is in our current economic situation, where we carry around massive debts that we can never pay, where we support failing companies for no good reason, where we spend far too much on just about everything, we can't afford it, either way.

\just had this argument at work
\\except the 'roid freak who was for it called it the "hypocritical oath"
\\\disclaimer on the "welfare idiots" comment: Yes there are actual deserving people on welfare, but in Mass., they are waaaaaaaaaay outnumbered.

deadapostle: DUDE! I said that! Why is stonner getting quoted with my wise words?

Late night scotch-drinking incident, sorry. They were indeed wise words, though.

/might be bed time, eugh

Perhaps we should model what Germany has? They seem to have the best health system overall.

/Go with what works well.
//Why reinvent the wheel?

Nabb1: GAT_00: Nabb1: False equivalency.

How?

Mail service is not "socialized." The cost is not born equally by all who use it. You pay rates for what you mail. The more you mail, the more you pay. It's heavily subsidized in order to provide cheap bulk mail services that even UPS and FedEx can't compete with because of the high barriers to market entry, but it's hardly "socialized."


Gatt, can you tell us who owns controlling interest in the mail service (since you believe it gets "subsidies" to provide bulk mail delivery)?

AirForceVet: Perhaps we should model what Germany has? They seem to have the best health system overall.

Yes, I think so, too. It's the closest workable system to what we have now, too.