No to Nationalized Healthcare

"Can you tell me one government office that is run efficiently?"

Uh, the one you work for? You know, the one whose performance you were bragging up in the past few weeks? That one comes to mind pretty quick.

"Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness."

Yeah, tell that to the girls burned alive in the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, or the miners killed in the Susquehanna collapse of '59. Or the 12-year-olds stitching soccer balls for 14,15,16-hour-days - I'm sure they're all impressed by the "effectiveness" provided by "profit motives" and "competition."

ExInternMike, exactly where in the US are children stitching soccerballs for 14 hours a day? What does that have to do with American healthcare? And that Susquehanna collaspe? In 1959? What does that mean to healthcare today? I tried to search it but found nothing. Furthermore, considering the rate of lawyers in the courtroom suing on behave of money-hungry clients who burnt their mouth on coffee, I'm sure that many people injured in an accident will get their medical bills paid. Actually, I will contend that there are incidents that will argue for nationalized care. I recognize that, however the serious problems against it far outweigh it. And finally, attack the county government system all you want, but I know that Elmore is run quite efficiently compared to most. In the government game local county government usually runs better than state or federal. Thanks for your comment. The time is 7:44am.

"What does that mean to healthcare today?"

Maybe you didn't notice it, but I first quoted from your own words:

"Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness."

My examples of the Knox Mine collapse along the banks of the Susquehanna (http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=398 - it's the first link to pop up if you google "Susquehanna mine collapse 1959), the use of child labor overseas by American companies, and the Triangle Shirtwaist Co. fire are examples of how free-market cost control efforts often work - by taking obscene risks with the lives of the workers for whom the companies owe better.

"And finally, attack the county government system all you want."

Except I DIDN'T attack the county government. I don't doubt the workers involved in ag extension programs contribute richly to society - one of the many nice parts of not being conservative is I don't have to go through life pretending that my fellow Americans who draw public-sector paychecks are all lazy, corrupt bureaucrats.

But, hey, if you need a more health care-related example or a more recent example, there's AIG's treatment of seriously injured Iraq contractors, which fits both bills.

"According to the investigative website ProPublica, AIG and other top insurance companies have routinely denied medical benefits to civilian contractors wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many workers have returned home to face long, grinding battles for basic medical care, artificial limbs and psychological counseling."

Here's a portion of a transcript of an interview with one of them.

"JOHN WOODSON: I ran over a IED and was blown out of the truck over a hundred foot away from where I was. I lost my left leg. Both of my knees were damaged. My pelvis was broken. And I've lost my eyesight. My left eye is permanently damaged, as well as my right, three-quarters of it.

I'm not able to work. I cannot see. I can't sit for a very long time. I can't stand for the same time limit. There's irritation somewhere in my body.

You constantly are worried about who is going to pay these bills, who is going to take care of me, because you can't rely on AIG to come through for you. I don't understand how a company of their size and their magnitude and with government bailouts and money and support--I don't understand them not taking care of the individuals that were injured. It makes me wonder, the people that still believe in AIG, you know, what they're going to go through. What's going happen to them if they have a problem? The men that are still in Iraq and over in Afghanistan, the ladies, what's going to happen to them? Knowing what I have struggled through for five years now."

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/28/injured_war_zone_contractors_fight_to

Of course, if AIG didn't fight against every penny spent on those wounded in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, they may not have any money left for those giant bonuses you've defended.

Thank you, Mike for sharing that interview. It is a great example of what is wrong with our healthcare system. I've never said that our system of private healthcare isn't flawed. What I did say was that the reasons against nationalized healthcare far outweigh it. It seems that we should be focusing on how to fix the problems instead of using those reasons to justify turning our country into socialised healthcare. The gret thing about private companies is that if people would punish them when they are wrong by moving their money elsewhere, then the company would be forced to change it's tactics or go bankrupt. Oh, wait! I guess that wouldn't happen cause the government would give them a bail-out loan. Well, in a true free-enterprise world, business is run by the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like what a business does, then they don't buy their product. Unfortunately, if the government own healthcare and we didn't like how they did it, I don't think we can just stop buying their product. We are stuck forever. Once it has the control it will never change. It is 7:50am so better get going. I have an interview on KMHI!

"Well, in a true free-enterprise world, business is run by the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like what a business does, then they don't buy their product."

1) Private health insurance is generally paid monthly. By the time the consumer discovers he or she doesn't like the quality of health care, he or she has already paid for it. Like Woodson.

2) While the unscrupulous health insurance company may, in the long run, drive off customers by reputation, they'll still see a significantly higher profit yield per policy than the responsible providers and still grip financial leverage.

3) But if they DID go bankrupt, who would honor those remaining policies in the process of being paid out? Would you deny coverage to Americans who purchased health care and just had the bad luck of getting seriously injured at the same time their insurer is running out of money? And who pays for it?

4) In a true free-enterprise world, if consumers are unhappy with ALL the options new providers will be drawn to the field by the opportunities. Health care hasn't been a free enterprise in generations because state licensing for health care professionals establishes a barrier to new providers - not the intended consequence, but a side consequence to their objective of maintaining standards and qualifications the consumer can believe in - and generally they do a good job, another example of a government program that for the most part works.

5) My opinion is, in a true free-enterprise world, if consumers are unhappy with ALL the options, they can elect not to purchase the product at all. If I'm unhappy with the practices of the diamond mining industry - and I am - I can choose not to buy diamonds. If I'm unhappy with how the carbonated beverage biz conducts itself I don't have to buy Coke OR Pepsi OR R.C. The Diabetic unhappy with the cost of insulin doesn't get the choice to stop being Diabetic. And that seriously impinges upon the consumers' freedoms.

This issue is always going to be sensitive due to possible loss of life or quality of life. One aspect of nationalizing health care (HC) that I dont care for is that our talented physicians, nurses, researchers, etc. will go elsewhere. Nationalized HC will result in lower wages on their part and so alot of talented individuals will go elsewhere. They are human and prone to the lure of the dollar just like every one else so I cant really blame them.

Hey Intern before you quote someone who was injured in Iraq, look at the source. He was workig for PRIVATE contract. He took the job KNOWING what the rules were and what was waiting if he got injured. If he claims he didn't then he's a LIAR. He voluntarily took a job in a WAR ZONE. And for it he was paid ALOT of money. I know this because one of my best friends works for a contract company as a combat paramedic. He works as part of a well amrmed protection detail and for it he is paid $170,00 a year. He works 90 days in country and 30 out. After one year he has the option of staying or going. He's on his 3rd year. The money he's made has allowed him to travel the world and start his own business in Boise. He knows that every patrol into the city with his team could be his last. But he's NEVER complained. He knows the inherent risks but he's young and stupid and the $$$ signs have his attention. I envy him. To be young like that and be able to do what he's done and see what he's seen...wow. I feel bad if someone who makes 4 times the national average in wages got hurt, maybe he should have stashed some "Just in Case"

And what the HELL does THAT have to do with the healthcare/insurance???

"Hey Intern before you quote someone who was injured in Iraq, look at the source. He was workig for PRIVATE contract. He took the job KNOWING what the rules were and what was waiting if he got injured. If he claims he didn't then he's a LIAR."

And AIG knew all of this, too, when they cashed the checks paid to them for Woodson's policies and the policies of other Iraq and Afghanistan contractors. Policies paid for, at least in part, by U.S. taxpayers. AIG was paid to provide a service and now they're trying to weasel out of it. But, go ahead, let them off the hook.

"maybe he should have stashed some 'Just in Case.'"

So this private-market system Mrs. Kovac feels so strongly we should retain, works best when the consumer prepares for it to not work at all. Got it.

"The Republicans are a SOLID MINORITY right now and you people will take all the heat in 2010 for anything and everything that goes south between now and then."

You mean like the Republicans took the heat for the four and a half years they controlled both branches of congress and the White House, Bazooka Man? Sure, some people gave them heat. But most conservatives I know try to lay the blame for "anything and everything" that was going "south" by 2006 on Clinton or, somehow, on Democrats having congressional majorities the two years after - even though that majority was penned in by Bush's veto.

And about 47 percent of the country - yourself included - still voted for the guy who voted for Bush's agenda 90 percent of the time - that's some real heat being taken by Republicans. True, McCain would never spend Obama-type sums of money on America when he could subsidize Iraq's national security for five decades instead.

Two real interesting lines from you, Bazooka Man

"EVERY official move...INCLUDING the 900-page 'energy bill' they JUST SIGNED"

"Feinstein telling 60 Minutes just last month she is waiting for the 'right moment' to spring her measures for an all-out gun confiscation move."

"They" haven't "just signed" the energy bill. President Obama has not signed it, the Senate hasn't approved it, the House hasn't passed it. You told me to learn to count - that's 0 for 3. The bill was voted out of committee so all 435 representatives could debate it. "The bill is expected to be on the House floor by mid-June," according to the Web site of the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation, which opposes the bill.

But President Obama DID just sign a credit card reform bill into law - that you haven't said anything about this is interesting. Obama on Friday "signed into law a bill that would prevent credit card companies from raising interest rates arbitrarily and charging certain fees." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Now, I could argue the new law doesn't go far enough, and if I did, Censored could then argue my "far enough" isn't nearly far enough at all. But YOUR silence on this bill is particularly interesting, Bazooka Man, for a whole other reason...

"Congress lifted a Reagan-era ban on guns in national parks this week, attaching the amendment to a bill placing new restrictions on credit card companies. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law Friday."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905230327&source=rss

Yes, that's right. President Obama just expanded recognition of Second Amendment rights in National Parks, though the article goes on to say the Reagan-era "ban" was actually "rules (that) severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring that guns be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk."

So, just to show you I can count again, for your ONE Feinstein TALKING about gun control out of 100 Senators, I've got 105 House Democrats and 27 Senate Democrats who VOTED to expand gun rights by attaching a measure to permit loaded and concealed weapons in national parks to the credit card bill, which passed the House 279-147, as reported by Fox News' Web site, and on a vote of 67-29 in the Senate. The overall legislation then was passed in the Senate on a 90-5 vote - that's a lot of Democrats that either support the Second Amendment or are willing to compromise on the issue for consumer-lending protections.

Bazooka, what a great post! Your realization was wonderful. You not only took a step back in order to understand those younger than you but you also agknowledged both your frame of mind and looked at theirs. You are exactly right! The America that you grew up in is vastly different from what younger adults experienced, just as it is with your parents. Keeping that in mind when reading opinions will help you keep from busting a vein in your brain. I also enjoyed a brief vision of a young boy playing baseball with buddies. It was a brief moment that warmed my heart. Those carefree days of childhood are so bittersweet. Nehi orange and time with your dad. Sadly, many young adults didn't get the kind of childhood that brings such warmth. Yours can serve to comfort you as the country goes crazy. (The time is 7:08am)

Another consequence to nationalized healthcare would be Americans not doing their best to avoid the emergency room. If the penalty to being an idiot and breaking one's leg while riding a motorcycle is nothing why not engage in it more often. I realize that pain is a deterrent but I know plenty of people who would feel that they can take advantage of the system.

I had an ex-wife who made 25 visits to the ER in 3 years. Yes, it is true. My sanity was at a premium. I felt that she did not take care of herself and took no pride in herself. As I have continued down life's road, I am finding that she is not this singular anomaly. There are plenty of hypochondriacs and people that because they dont have to pay dont take care of themselves or are negligent. Nationalizing healthcare would bring more of these types out of the woodwork. There are some who would genuinely benefit from it but society would increasingly be on the hook for these negligent free-riding, attention-seeking, types.

"PS..............when you get a chance, Mike, look up HR 645........the Democrat-proposed building of "shelters for disaster victims," to be built on military bases. Look beyond the "humanitarian" surface, and dig into the construction details. Then ask yourself why camps like this would require barbed wire and GUARD TOWERS!"

Did you actually read this piece of legislation or did you just generalize on the fact that it would be built on military installations?

Take time to read legislation you recommend, because NO WHERE in that bill was there anything about barbed wire and guard towers.

Take a few seconds to realize that the government isn't always trying to screw us over. Because, yes I'll admit, the government does act like its never been out of its multi-billion dollar cardboard box most of the time, not everything they propose is a game of control.

I went to this website: GovTrack.us/congress

"H. R. 645

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 22, 2009

Section 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."

The bill has been referred to the following committees:

House Transportation and Infrastructure

House Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management

House Armed Services

House Armed Services, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Last Action on bill: Feb 6, 2009: House Armed Services: Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Were the gaurd towers ACTUALLY in the bill bazookaman?

that's where you look for things like gaurd towers.

not everything on the internet is trust worthy.

It does state that no fewer than 6 will be built and that it will have state of the art command and control centers at the ready 24 hours.

Here is section b of H.R. 645:

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be--

(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;

(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;

(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;

(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;

(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and

(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.

On home computer-Lunch break-time: 1:39pm