The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Health care reform: The motives behind the opposing parties

By on August 17, 2009 1:42:35 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.

From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.

But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.

So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?

(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)

 

Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):

  • The Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege (file under altruism).
  • Desire for more government control.
  • An excuse to raise taxes (no one wants to pay more taxes without a good reason).
  • Desperation (they can't get private insurance and hope for the public option).

Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):

  • Greed / seeking profits (Insurance companies will lose money if forced to provide care to sick)
  • Selfishness ("Why should I pay for your surgery?").
  • Government shouldn't do health care because they are incompetent ().
  • Poor people should die sooner than later.
  • It is not clear how the reform can be financed.
  • A deal with drug companies prohibiting the government to negotiate drug prices can't lower costs.

 

Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.

Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.

Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.

The personal Cost of Health Care - An international comparison

For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.

And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.

Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)

 

Cheers!

+59 Karma | 549 Replies
August 18, 2009 3:17:36 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Obscenitor, you have absolutely no sense of humor.  You fail at life.  Welcome to the club.

 

Trust it to do what?  Give a shit about you? You might be surprised.

 

Are you saying politicians give a shit about us?  I kinda think Bush Jr. actually did and was just too fucking stupid for the job in the end, but I really doubt we've had a president since Reagan that didn't have self interests first and foremost when going for the job, and he'd be questionable at best.  I'd have to go back to Lincoln to be relatively sure of myself, and the founders to stake my name on it.  I'm damned certain the ratio is even worse in congress, and local politics are nearly as bad as federal.

 

I trust the companies that survive mutual competition to play to my self interests in meeting my expectations on a product by as much as I can hope for.  It's in their best interests to keep their customers instead of losing them to someone else.  The government doesn't have any competition, and we don't have an honest media to keep track of them, never have.

August 18, 2009 3:54:55 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Obscenitor, you have absolutely no sense of humor.  You fail at life.  Welcome to the club.
Don't pull a Carlos Mencia on me. Make a funny joke before you evaluate my sense of humor.
Are you saying politicians give a shit about us?  I kinda think Bush Jr. actually did and was just too fucking stupid for the job in the end, but I really doubt we've had a president since Reagan that didn't have self interests first and foremost when going for the job, and he'd be questionable at best.  I'd have to go back to Lincoln to be relatively sure of myself, and the founders to stake my name on it.  I'm damned certain the ratio is even worse in congress, and local politics are nearly as bad as federal.

I trust the companies that survive mutual competition to play to my self interests in meeting my expectations on a product by as much as I can hope for.  It's in their best interests to keep their customers instead of losing them to someone else.  The government doesn't have any competition, and we don't have an honest media to keep track of them, never have.

The kicker on your closing line is that our media is owned by massive corporations. Competition with each other hasn't produced better news, it's only gotten worse as those corporations have been further deregulated. Corporations by their very nature have no interest in public well being and need sunlight just as badly as the government.

 

August 18, 2009 4:13:35 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
Very simple.

The right and the obstructionists are motivated by money/greed/selfishness.

The left is motivated by the sense that healthcare is a right and should not be distributed based on a persons class or that people should be placed in classes to begin with.

The US is the Great Whore. We have the best whore doctors in the world, the best whore research scientists, the best whore corporations, the best whore CEO's. No one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves. If people die because they don't have enough money then it's just too fucking bad.

Very simple.

August 18, 2009 4:49:05 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I personally would like to see a government run system in the United States for several reasons:

 

1) It is the government's job to provide health care. In article I, section 8 of the constitution, it states that congress has the power to provide for the "general welfare" (welfare as defined as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being" when the constitution was written). The fact of the matter is that the federal government already does do this, but to a lesser extent via Medicare, SCHIP, and the VA. Of those, the VA affects me the most personally because they actually payed for a private flight all the way accross the country to his home for my grandfather (84) after getting a bad stroke.

 

2) A government run system would not be for-profit. One of the main problems with the current system is that workers at health insurance companies get a larger paycheck based upon how many people they deny coverage. Contrast that with NHS in Britian which gives doctors pay raises based upon how many people they get to quit smoking, lose weight, etc. A not-for-profit system would also streamline the administrative costs. I think that in the current system, they're around 16%, whereas in other countries they're around 6%.

 

3) Health care for everyone means higher quality health for you. Take any disease as an example. If everyone was doing regular checkups, which people tend not to do now due to having a copay) people would be receiving feedback more often on how healthy they are, getting suggestions from the doctor, etc. If said person became healthier, they would be less likely to contract a disease. So if he was sitting next to you on the bus, you in turn would be less likely to contract the disease, clearly making you healthier.

 

Personally, I would like to see a creation of a government beaurocracy that would be like an HMO, but anyone could apply and be accepted. In this system, a customer would only pay his or her monthly bill, and everything health-related would subsidized. In turn, people would go to the doctor more often, guiding them closer to a healthier lifestyle (of course limits would be placed on such regular check ups)

As this kind of system grows based on a percentage of the American population, it would begin to raise taxes slightly while reducing the premiums for the customers. This would eventually result in a gradual phase-in of such a system where the system would start off with competition right off the bat, and as it became better, more people would switch over, making it more firmly rooted.

In addition, a payment constraint could be put on its growth -- say once 20% of the population uses it, it starts taking 25% of the total payments from taxes and then a bill goes out to congress as whether to leave it as is, or continue it's augmentation of funding via taxes.

I feel that in the end taxpayers should be the primary supporters for the system (once most people start using it) because taxes and government spending are a "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" method wheras insurance premiums aren't.

August 18, 2009 5:00:14 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting CharlesCS,
Control for control's sake? Or do you mean control over the market via regulations for the sake of ... let's say stability or predictability?

Come on, was my response really that complicated? I didn't write a 1000 page reply written in Senate/Congress language you know. Control, the more the gov't controls the less they have to worry about losing it. Does it really matter what they are controlling?

I'm sorry, but you still don't make sense. Maybe deliberatly or because you never thought this through. And you also don't provide an answer regarding the topic.

Yes, it matters what you control. Even as a rhetoric question this comes over eminently stupid, sorry. And no, your response wasn't complicated. But you apparently think you stated some self-evident truth, which you didn't.

Why would the government want control over something that is essentially a burden? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm asking after the motives. In the past the government relinquished control over the financial market because it believed the private sector would do better without government interference (and maybe some other motives).

So, come on, why would - In your opinion - the government want control over the health care sector?


Note to certain others: This is no town hall meeting.

Stop derailing the thread with pointless off-topic rants.


August 18, 2009 5:05:17 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

 

What I don't get......why is there a left and right on the issue of "healthcare for one and all" in the first place?  

 

It seems to me, that political allegiances shouldn't be able to come between even the desire to (as a Nation) be able to provide basic healthcare for one and all.  I find it strange that people can't seem to unite over such a desire.

Obviously plans on how such a system could be implemented might differ largely, but the desire to see such a system should be the driving motivation in all involved.  In Canada's case, we do obviously also have differing opinions thrown at us from the various political parties, but I do think it is evident that although the parties are each prepared to suggest modifications to the existing healthcare system, no party/person would ever suggest to cease providing (at least) basic healthcare to all citizens. 

 

the Monk

August 18, 2009 5:10:56 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting the_Monk,
 

What I don't get......why is there a left and right on the issue of "healthcare for one and all" in the first place?  

Because they made it so.

If the left succeeds in the health care reform then it gains political credit in the eyes of the people, which equals a decline in power for the american right. So they have to oppose the left on that issues, no matter how many corpses they'll leave in their wake.

It's a strategic decision.

August 18, 2009 5:21:34 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Arrodo you might want to hold on to your neutrality.

 

 

@luhy. All train companies are kept afloat by the goverment. All of them. Also you only pointed out how other goverment run companies failed not how the healthcare one is better right now than the private ones.

August 18, 2009 5:35:51 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting Island Dog,
Government is inefficient.  Government is broke.  Why someone would want them running healthcare is beyond me. 

 
How is the Government inefficient? And your Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it.

 

Some lunatics even brought guns to a recent demonstration against Obama in Pheonix.

August 18, 2009 5:43:51 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

How is the Government inefficient? And your Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it.

How is our government inefficient? Just count the ways.

 

"Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it"

With how much of our earnings, and to how many generations?

Government being broke IS!!!!!! the issue!

Get a CLUE!!!!

August 18, 2009 5:53:31 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

With how much of our earnings, and to how many generations?
The "how much" part has to be evaluated by the Government, obviously. What do you mean by "how many generations"?

Government being broke IS!!!!!! the issue!
No, only the flow of money is an issue.

August 18, 2009 6:36:49 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Moosetek13,

How is the Government inefficient? And your Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it.
"Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it"

With how much of our earnings, and to how many generations?

Government being broke IS!!!!!! the issue!

Get a CLUE!!!!

If you're referring to us being in debt...

We've been in debt practically consistently since the founding of the US. In fact, Alexander Hamilton argued that the US should stay in debt. Why? Because then we would pay only interest on money we owed other people, and thus they would want to keep the US in power so they would keep collecting interest on their money.

 

Slightly off-topic...I countinually find it distressing that the same people who pushed for a war in Iraq, costing trillions to save the Iraqis is unwilling to have the government pay to have people in America recieve free care.

August 18, 2009 6:37:34 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting Mumblefratz,

So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?Very simple.
The right and the obstructionists are motivated by money/greed/selfishness.

The left is motivated by the sense that healthcare is a right and should not be distributed based on a persons class or that people should be placed in classes to begin with.

The US is the Great Whore. We have the best whore doctors in the world, the best whore research scientists, the best whore corporations, the best whore CEO's. No one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves. If people die because they don't have enough money then it's just too fucking bad.

Very simple.

 

Eveyone dies.  The less able to pay should die sooner rather than later.  Insurance is supposed to be for emergencies.  Not maintenance.  

I use my insurance for maintenance because I can... if I was self employed it would be cheaper to pay cash for all the insulin and testing supplies I need to live ... I have done that 2001-2004 when I was mostly unemployed (thanks GWJr)

And it wasn't nearly as bad as people make out. 

Had I had a heart attack during that time frame I would have died.  Unless my family saw fit to pay the bills.  Lucky for me that didn't happen.  And during that period of my life I would have gladly embraced death as a way out of the morass that it had become.

Capitalism is based on EARNING and buying whatever you can afford. 

This whole debate centers around giving away medical care to people that have no desire to succeed, provide or secure their life from hardship on their own. 

They are like starving Ethopians with their hands out having rice ladeled into their grubby little hands twice a day with a glass of water on the side.

They never HAVE to get up and grow food to feed themselves someone else does it for them. 

Canada has a great example of how this system doesn't work terribly well.  The Socialized part of the medicine has 2+year waiting lists for many procedures.  While if you can AFFORD IT, the private guy down the street can do it next week.

If you want to run a charity ward for the uninsured DO IT WITH YOUR OWN MONEY AND KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY TAXES.

The Federal government has gotten into far too many areas it shouldn't be into anything but:

Three real mandates

1) Protection from foreign powers

2) Upholding constitutional law

3) Administration of those duties through the military, judiciary etc...

 

August 18, 2009 6:40:38 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting cuckaroucha,

Quoting Moosetek13, reply 60
How is the Government inefficient? And your Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it.
"Government being "broke" at the moment is not the issue here, after all the tax payers will pay for it"

With how much of our earnings, and to how many generations?

Government being broke IS!!!!!! the issue!

Get a CLUE!!!!
If you're referring to us being in debt...

We've been in debt practically consistently since the founding of the US. In fact, Alexander Hamilton argued that the US should stay in debt. Why? Because then we would pay only interest on money we owed other people, and thus they would want to keep the US in power so they would keep collecting interest on their money.

 

Slightly off-topic...I countinually find it distressing that the same people who pushed for a war in Iraq, costing trillions to save the Iraqis is unwilling to have the government pay to have people in America recieve free care.

 

There is no such thing as FREE care.  Its costs money to someone.  Whether thats the taxpayer or insurance or the individual is a matter of some debate.


You don't have a right to FREE MEDICAL CARE... you have the right to pursue happiness and if being healthy is part of that mandate then YOU better get yourself some.

 

August 18, 2009 6:52:27 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting cuckaroucha,
Slightly off-topic...I countinually find it distressing that the same people who pushed for a war in Iraq, costing trillions to save the Iraqis is unwilling to have the government pay to have people in America recieve free care.
Indeed.

 

Quoting Lugh,
You don't have a right to FREE MEDICAL CARE... you have the right to pursue happiness and if being healthy is part of that mandate then YOU better get yourself some.
Some americans are just twisted. They want to have "the right to bear arms", but having the right to free medical care seems to be beyond their comprehension.

August 18, 2009 7:06:29 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting Lugh,
Eveyone dies. The less able to pay should die sooner rather than later. Insurance is supposed to be for emergencies. Not maintenance.

Is this sociopathic opinion right-wing or republican mainstream? Because it surely isn't christian.

Quoting Lugh,
They are like starving Ethopians with their hands out having rice ladeled into their grubby little hands twice a day with a glass of water on the side.

They never HAVE to get up and grow food to feed themselves someone else does it for them.

This isn't only racist, it also shows off your stellar stupidity and ideological ruthlessness.

Ethopia (and twenty other african countries) had a drought period in 1984 that lasted two years which resulted in a hunger crisis that cost more than a million lives.

I completely fail to see how you can gloat about something like that.


Damn ... let myself get off topic by this abomination.

Let's chalk this motive up as "Because poor people deserve to die."

 

August 18, 2009 7:38:13 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Lugh - I strongly disagree with you.

"Capitalism is based on EARNING and buying whatever you can afford."

Trust me, you dont want pure capitalism. You dont want pure communism, too. A hybrid system provides best of both worlds, and is called social capitalism.

 "Three real mandates

1) Protection from foreign powers

2) Upholding constitutional law

3) Administration of those duties through the military, judiciary etc..."

 

That would be pure capitalism. Add one other real mandate:

4) basic services payed from your taxes, like firemen, policemen, education AND healthcare

 

Why are you so afraid? If it works very well in other countries which are even less wealthy than USA, whats the problem? Its not mandatory, its an alternative. If you dont want it, dont use it and pay for private service. But you still have to pay the tax, you will complain of course.

Its the same kind of thinking like "I dont study and dont have children, so why should my taxes go to education?" And that kind of thinking is just wrong...

 

 

 

 

August 18, 2009 8:47:26 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

If only the right wing politicians were as honest as lugh, we could have had health care a long time ago by now.

August 18, 2009 9:07:19 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Island Dog,
Government is inefficient.  Government is broke.  Why someone would want them running healthcare is beyond me. 

 

 

BEcause the money os not spent the right way. That's why the gouvermemnt is broke. Here in Canada the gouverment is always broke but we still have healthcare. Better to have health care and have everybody able to work.

 

HEalthcare should be the pillar on which a sociaty is grown. The  healthier the better your people will be. There as to bea  way to make it work.

 

As a canadian I do feel for you guys....

August 18, 2009 12:05:18 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

The US is the Great Whore. We have the best whore doctors in the world, the best whore research scientists, the best whore corporations, the best whore CEO's. No one gives a fuck about anyone but themselves. If people die because they don't have enough money then it's just too fucking bad.

Brilliant.  Fucking brilliant.  'Analysis' a mile wide and a quarter inch deep.

I may be wrong, but don't you live in Massachussetts?

August 18, 2009 12:12:50 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Oh, that's where you're trying to hide from my wrath, Daiwa.

True, it's brilliant... like a diamond ring that gets buried anyway along with the final banking balance.

Work hard, show off, slam the brakes, paint the walls, drink up.

Whatta life -- Stolen.

August 18, 2009 12:18:46 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Capitalism is based on EARNING and buying whatever you can afford.

And it has long evolved into stealing when you suddenly, somehow (either from having been stolen from or any other good and bad reasons) can't afford the essentials.

August 18, 2009 12:50:12 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I'd say that as long as a person works hard, a decent standard of living must be assured and that really includes comprehensive health care. I don't care how much they earn and could pay, they deserve it, period. society is not there for the strong, the intelligent. those can fend for themselves. just view it as in investment in security and internal stabilisation. content citizens are peaceful citizens.

as for the 4th basic reason that ShotmanMaslo mentioned: it's really secondary whether these functions are directly provided by the government or by private enterprises as long as the job gets done to specifications. that means low enough cost for a high coverage and good services to go with it.

also, I don't quite how a few times ppl wrote how they trust local governemnt, but not federal. I mean I live in a very federal government and I just don't make much of a difference. if anything I care less about the local level, bc most of the issues they decide on is not very important anyway. don't give me that crap about 'they are so far away and don't understand the issues'. these are professionals, of course they will study what they are doing and consulting experts. closer to home means nothing to me really.

August 18, 2009 12:52:21 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Lugh,
There is no such thing as FREE care.  Its costs money to someone.  Whether thats the taxpayer or insurance or the individual is a matter of some debate.


You don't have a right to FREE MEDICAL CARE... you have the right to pursue happiness and if being healthy is part of that mandate then YOU better get yourself some.

 

Right now, we do provide "health care" for all poor. How? Emergency rooms. Who pays for that? Cities and their taxpayers. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine chipping in to help someone save their life, but the truth is, there's a more effecient way to keep the poor not dead.

What universal health care has proven is that preventitive care is a MUCH cheaper way to keep the poor alive. That's why other countries are able to have a healthier populace while spending less money.

August 18, 2009 1:09:50 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

What universal health care has proven is that preventitive care is a MUCH cheaper way to keep the poor alive. That's why other countries are able to have a healthier populace while spending less money.

There are so many things wrong with the inherent (and erroneous) assumptions in both these statements.  My fingers being sore from trying to explain elsewhere, I'll just suggest you pursue some further reading.

Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108435  walnut2   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000406   Page Render Time:

Stardock Magazine | Register | Online Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Copyright ?? 2012 Stardock Entertainment and Gas Powered Games. Demigod is a trademark of Gas Powered Games. All rights reserved. All other trademarks and copyrights are the properties of their respective owners. Windows, the Windows Vista Start button and Xbox 360 are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies, and 'Games for Windows' and the Windows Vista Start button logo are used under license from Microsoft. ?? 2012 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. AMD, the AMD Arrow logo and combinations thereof are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.