Thread: Health Care Opinion

I see some threads on Health Care aka "Obamacare" here so i was hoping to give an opinion on the topic that maybe can add to the dialogue:

I understand the resistance to healthcare as proposed by Pres Obama. BUT, for a moment let's remove HIS plan from the discussion and look at the idea itself.

It seems the opposition to the current plan has many points (many of which are valid) but the issue of "communism" as a characterization of the "idea" of socialized medicine I think is off the mark. I think using a political ideology/societal framework (communism) to describe a particular program or feature of a society is especially counter-productive in regards to national health care. It really damages both sides of the argument- Especially those against the proposed plan? Attaching the label of communism to national health care is wrong on so many levels but communism contains so many ideological facets that have little or nothing to do with a national healthcare plan. One that is being proposed as a function of a "free government" like the USA. Im saying this because its like calling the Public Library system communism or the Highway system. Or national defense infrastructure as communism. After all in theory we all collectively pay for the use an maintenance of a particular service like road, or better yet, Missile defense system. It protects us all and we all fund it with taxes.

That being said I would imagine it's unlikely to be against a National Healthcare system particularly for anyone who considers themselves "patriotic" in the common understanding of the word. Ex: if you support the war in Afghanistan logic would dictate; A. You believe the mission of proactive terrorist destruction is sound, and as such the benefit is for all american people because terrorists want to kill citizens. B. At some level you care about your fellow countrymen and even if its totally self-centered the byproduct of your vanity does help others by avoiding death at the hands of terrorists.

SO, my own assumption would be the MOST nationalistic USA citizens would be FOR national healthcare. They would oppose the current plan because its NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Meaning, with so many examples being used as negative (UK, GERMANY, Canada, Etc) One would expect the large majority of nationalist USA citizens to not only want National Healthcare BUT, DEMAND the BEST POSSIBLE PLAN ON THE PLANET. One that reflects the dominant "myth and lore" of the USA as a global leader, place one only hopes to live one day etc. Something to the effect of, "Germany is good, BUT the USA MUST and CAN do it a million times better"
It has nothing to do with Communism. The USA accepts NO compromise when using tax dollars to buy Tactical Aircraft or Tanks? Ours are arguably the BEST on the planet, and any improvements have been based on our platform. The idea is that American Citizens DEMAND the best product for their tax dollar.

Incentives: I have heard the stuff about MD's NOT wanting to practice etc. BUT America CAN do better? I don't buy it. We waste lots of money and there is no doubt in my mind we can afford to compensate Medical Doctors with LOTS AND LOTS of money.

Its just my opinion that the current debate, appears to be resigned to the fact that "if" we had national health insurance the result would be Medical Doctors who are underpaid and unmotivated. It seems very nihilistic and grim. As if there is zero option to compensate our Medical Doctors and Staff to current levels, or BETTER YET a pay rise!

It would be nice IF Medical Doctors could return to the days where a GP could easily make a few hundred grand a year, steady hours and not be stressed. On the other hand the specialists who decided to follow different paths made millions and typically worked crazy hours until they could hire doctors and expand their practice.

The average GP has been seeing their income steadily decline over the past 20 years. What's more is that Physicians really need to practice their profession in free-form. A good Medical Doctor who is treating a patient should be able to focus on diagnostics and care with no regard for "cost" as we know it in present day. Medical professionals will NEVER throw caution to the wind with regard to cost even if they had free reign because they are disciplined, and trained. They have worked hard to be trusted and I for one think they can be trusted by the public to use medical technologies to treat and cure patients responsibly.

As a professional myself, I would not tolerate a 3rd party hindering my abilities to cure or treat a patient due to "cost" especially if my duties and scope were to cure and treat sick and injured people! How can we as a country rely on statistics for Cancer survival when Medical Doctors have not been given the opportunity to treat a patient without being told what to do by a governing interest like insurance companies limiting the depth of their abilities vastly.

Pharmaceutical Companies: "they won't make drugs, they will fail to innovate" is the claim many opponents make against national healthcare. This IS TRUE ONLY in the case of "communism" or "slavery". Again it seems another foregone conclusion in the debate. What if, for example the US Drug companies were subsidized by tax payers (which they are now) and the USA ran a competitive grant program? Roughly speaking the first company to provide the government with a drug for X illness wins a BaZillion dollar cash payment (some crazy amount of money). This way the drug companies can work toward LARGE TAX FREE SUMS OF MONEY and they can have investors who buy stocks that pay out just like the current market. BUT the tax money provided for operations and HUGE payout is in exchange for providing access to the medication FOR US CITIZENS who get it for FREE. Thus, the drug companies attract the best talent, executives are compensated by pure performance, investors who buy stocks get loaded, and everyone down the line gets rich from hard work. The best part is the Drug Companies can research effective drugs without fear of losing private capital. This is because the companies are working FOR the citizens of the USA and as such we are rewarding the best talent very handsomely. The ownership of the Drug and its patent becomes US Property, thus the Drug Companies do not have to sue or extend patents to protect profits which costs them BIG BUCKS!!
Finally, there will be better quality control and no rush to market as a competitive grant creates less incentive to put pressure on the FDA to evaluate etc and get it to the market. Safer drugs, more compensation to Drug companies, US citizens with TOTAL access.
As a requirement, the USA can demand ALL PRODUCTION and RESEARCH be done in the USA. New jobs, new infrastructure, BIG PROFITS, and the list goes on. Win Win situation. We can hold international patents (WTO RULES) and use our Drugs to buy our foreign debt down as well. We need to use our brilliant innovation for the benefit of our OWN people and sell or barter them outside our borders.

Originally Posted by bkthreezerofive

What if, for example the US Drug companies were subsidized by tax payers (which they are now) and the USA ran a competitive grant program? Roughly speaking the first company to provide the government with a drug for X illness wins a BaZillion dollar cash payment (some crazy amount of money). This way the drug companies can work toward LARGE TAX FREE SUMS OF MONEY and they can have investors who buy stocks that pay out just like the current market. BUT the tax money provided for operations and HUGE payout is in exchange for providing access to the medication FOR US CITIZENS who get it for FREE. Thus, the drug companies attract the best talent, executives are compensated by pure performance, investors who buy stocks get loaded, and everyone down the line gets rich from hard work. The best part is the Drug Companies can research effective drugs without fear of losing private capital.

But why not substitute the word 'government' (bold above) with the word 'public'? Would not the same effect be achieved for both the benefit of the drug company and the public?

You say that the medication would be free, but how? Aren't the citizens still paying, but from the back end with taxes? The BaZillion dollar crazy cash payment - taxes? And in reality, some who may never benefit from the drug would still pay for it through taxes. Is that fair to them?

Investors buy stocks? Would investors pay cash for equity AND, as tax payers, pay the company in taxes? How would that affect their actual return?

I don't know, just some thoughts.

I think you make a lot of excellent points. In fact, I agree with most of them. I think the biggest problem with the idea of the government running healthcare in general is the copious amount of waste and corruption that we all "hear" about. I don't think that there is any question that the vast majority of Americans would like universal coverage. However, I don't think the same could be said for a single payer system, and I'm not sure that most want the government to manage it. I do think that the vast majority of people want the government to mandate universal coverage.

Personally, I can think of several countries with healthcare models that I'd certainly support. And, FWIW, there is a lot of medical innovation that comes from countries with universal healthcare. The argument that innovation would cease, is most likely invalid based on my experience as a medical device distributor.

Originally Posted by honedright

BAren't the citizens still paying, but from the back end with taxes?

No, it'll be magic money. What's another few hundred billion a year in magic money? We don't actually plan on paying back the debt you know. What's monopoly money anyway when millions of lives are at risk every year?

People have a right to get the best medical care available for no cost at all. Everyone has that right! Who cares who pays for it! We'll just make it happen somehow! The debate is over, it's time to act. Hope and change baby!



Hey I've got an idea - why not cut up bits and pieces of the constitution and write "One zillion dollars" on each little piece and mail those out to the hospitals as payment for their services? That might work. Or better yet, just shoot a rocket to the moon that places a giant LED sign that reads "this LED sign permits everyone on earth to get whatever they want in return for the light from this sign. The moonlight is the new world currency, this is your global bailout. If you are a consumer, use the moonlight to make your purchases. We promise, the retailer has to honor it! It's your right after all! And if you're a retailer, feel free to charge whatever you want. We promise if the customers don't buy, we'll just give you more moonlight - no problem!"

Ok I've gone too far, havent I...

Originally Posted by honedright

But why not substitute the word 'government' (bold above) with the word 'public'? Would not the same effect be achieved for both the benefit of the drug company and the public?

You say that the medication would be free, but how? Aren't the citizens still paying, but from the back end with taxes? The BaZillion dollar crazy cash payment - taxes? And in reality, some who may never benefit from the drug would still pay for it through taxes. Is that fair to them?

Investors buy stocks? Would investors pay cash for equity AND, as tax payers, pay the company in taxes? How would that affect their actual return?

I don't know, just some thoughts.

You know, some countries manage to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time.

I work, pay my taxes and get SS benefits from a country with no debt, a very advanced safety net and low taxes (not Germany, I just live here). A portion of my SS benefits are automatically transferred to the German providers, so I get decent coverage where I live as well. I still have a private top up, for the electives which aren't covered 100% and to lower my taxes.

Originally Posted by honedright

You say that the medication would be free, but how? Aren't the citizens still paying, but from the back end with taxes?

The term we use is 'free at point of service'

That is, me (or you, infact) could go into a British hospital and get treated, no worries.