The purpose of government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Yes but you choose based on your judgment, your requirements, and your needs and not some pastie faced government worker who could care less about you and your needs!

---

Heh heh, Mark, pasty-faced pencil-pushin' workers own you when it comes to medical care via insurance. Those pasty-faced automatons are the ones who lick their finger, hold it in the air, and then make some bogus judgment call about whether your claim (which might just mean the difference between another 10 years of life or not) will be pushed through.

"Oh wait, this schmo forgot to dot his 'i' and cross his 't' in his declaration... block the claim!" or "Ths poor run-down hard-working citizen said he doesn't have a history of familial diseases but our records show his father once suffered a hernia... let him burn!". (I need a tongue-in-cheek icon for that.)

The success of the company you pay to shell out for you should anything bad happen to you is measured on its profit-making ability and on returned value to its shareholders. Doesn't anyone see a fundamental conflict of interest there?

I don't know what COBRA is, but I noticed in another thread that someone on this forum is going to find it next to impossible to replace their current insurance policy. And just because a pasty-faced geek is following the profit-focused protocol he/she was trained to follow and starts to wield that big red "Denied!" stamp like he was a deity.

Look, I ain't saying the UK has it down pat. The NHS suffers from all sorts of challenges, every system that has to deal with individuals will. But I just can't see how any medical care system based on the growth of profits to private companies and shareholders can also act in the best interests of its policy holders when that "best interest" can often mean taking decisions that have to disregard profit.

It's like f*cking for virginity. :o

Hmm, interesting how from the purpose of government we've focused on medical insurance. There was some thread on the subject few months ago too.

I don't think people who think the government should stay out of it are saying that the current system in US is without problems. Of course they tend to blaim them on government's interference, while the opposite side blames these problems on corporate greed.

At the end of the day the question of health insurance is one about risk management. The bigger the group you cover the better chances you have about managing the risk. But then there is the overhead for administration.

The free market idea is that the overhead costs will be reduced because of the competition. However having smaller groups covered under each plan means higher risk, i.e. higher expenses. That's why insurance companies can and very often do refuse to sell coverage if they believe you will be a huge expense for them (preexisting conditions for example). I mean that's just good business.
US has one of the best medical services in the world, yet they are quite inaccessible. And the cost of healthcare in US is significantly higher than anyplace else. The same way some people come to US for better treatment, some US citizens go abroad to get cheaper treatment.

In any civilized country in which the government administers the health insurance you always have the choice to seek better treatment on your own and at your own expense. The notion that US adopting national health coverage is going to turn it into a 3rd world dictatorship is... let's call it strange.

As far as waiting in line, I have not been to a doctor too often, but I can't remember a single time I have waited less than 30min (yes with apppintment, and yes even for trivial things, like blood work). That is the same wait as in my country which has the lowest standard of living in EU and a health system that is being reimplemented anew. Oh and in 30% of the cases my insurance claims have been processed wrongly, so I had to spend an hour being shuffled back and fort between institutions to find who is responsible for fixing it. The government beurocracy may just make it worse, but all my dealings with US government institutions have been much smoother, including when fixing errors.

But as I said before what role US government will have depends only on the US voters. Perhaps Joe's list is right, but if that's how society evolves, resisting it is pretty pointless.

And to add diversity to the discusion I for one don't see what's the reason for the constitution to empower the federal government with road management - it's not like all humans have fundamental right to highways. If anything the role of the federal government should be in setting common standards among the states, so that they remain coherent federation that's interoperable and not just a bunch of loosely related entities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Anyone else hearing a funny clicking noise when they use their telephone? ;)

James.

---

The trick is to wear a tin foil pointy-topped hat when using the computer (in your underwear of course) or talking on the phone. Works every time!
:D

Gugi -
There are those who agree that the the Federal Government has no business meddling in education, roads, seat belt use, legality of abortion, age for alcohol consumption; for that matter, drugs in general. That doesn't mean that they are tyrants for being involved, just means that some feel they don't have the right under current constitutional law. As it states, concerns not specifically listed are left to the states to handle - or you can amend the constitution to cover additional concerns.

As we all know the politicians just use the interstate commerce clause and the "provide for the general welfare" statement to be all-encompassing.