Text 12828, 82 rader
Skriven 2008-03-14 13:09:35 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
  Kommentar till text 12738 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
Ärende: Re: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
==========================================
BA> I have no problem with a locality establishing such an authority and one
BA> or more hospitals under it. I have a big problem with demanding free
BA> or cut-rate care from established providers. We don't (yet) require
BA> that grocers give free food to anyone who demands it, do we?
 
Ah but that's the thing.  We DO have grocers give free food to people, via
various methods.  Food stamps and WIC are probably the two biggest programs
folks know about.  And the store of course gets reimbursed for what they sell
under those programs.  Whether they get reimbursed the full amount, I don't
know, but they may get tax cuts for what they don't get back for all I know.
 
The point is, such programs allow the private grocery store a means to provide
government-funded groceries to the public.  This same methodology
would/could/is applied to hospitals. They'd still make money, just via the
government. We already do this with certain government healthcare plans. And
while it doesn't cover all the costs, as you pointed out in another post, the
cost of an empty bed vs the money made from government insurance is an easy
decision.
 
 
BA> A lot of folks are contending that health care is a 'right;' note that no
BA> legitimate right places a burden or obligation on another.
 
Healthcare is alread a burden on everyone.  We all already pay taxes to cover
some of the already established government programs.  It's just a lot less than
universal healthcare would cost, but the difference is that it would cover
everyone.  And for all that goes, I've always thought that offering tax
breaks/refunds to people who buy private insurance is something to consider
under such a plan.  Although you could also argue that everyone pays for fire
and police and schools, even if they choose to never use those services.
 
 
BA> Some folks have claimed that a right to 'reasonably priced ('reasonable'
BA> is a purely subjective concept and thus means different things to
BA> different people) health care is one of the most basic of rights; I
BA> point out that air, food and water are all more necessary to life than
BA> health care and of those three only air is free, if only because the
BA> government hasn't yet figured out a way to tax it.
 
Those things aren't free to everyone, but they are obviously free to those who
need it, thanks to the government and local programs.  When you can't afford
food/water, there are ways to get help. When you can't afford medical bills,
which a lot of Americans can't, what do you do?  You need your health just as
much as you need the food and water and air.  There are places in some areas
who will try to help you with medical care, but their problem is the very fact
that they're locally funded.  There's only so much they can do.  
 
 
BA> Actually it's more a matter of control.  We (or at least I) object to
BA> giving the government more and more control over our lives. When I
BA> worked in Omaha hospitals I often noted that it was unfortunate that
BA> so many people got sick or injured, but if they didn't I wouldn't get
BA> paid.
 
There are many doctors in Britain who drive fancy cars and live in fancy homes,
all thanks to NHS.  That's of course not going to be true of every doctor, but
at least all they have to worry about is doing their jobs and not all the
constant red tape of making sure they get their money from people like here in
America just to stay in business.
 
 
BA> In the US the rationing is done by price, in places with 'universal'
BA> care it's done by time - IOW waiting lists for services or simply
BA> denial of services ("There's nothing we can do for you, sorry").
 
I still contend that America could do it right, like some countries which allow
you to choose the hospital or doctor you want to go to.  If that one is full
up, you pick another one.  When rationing is done by price, it means you need a
lot of money to see a good doctor, some money at all to see a possibly crappy
doctor and/or to receive minimal care, or not enough money for no care at all. 

It's not that I don't understand where people are coming from in a lot of
respects who are opposed to universal healthcare, but I think it's easier to
say we don't need something when they've never really needed it themselves. The
healthcare programs we have now to help people in certain categories are just
junk.  Not enough funding, improperly managed, too many restrictions, etc. 
They should all be abolished for one which can cover anyone instead of having
all these individual ones, and do what's necessary this time to ensure the
funds are there to do it right.

--- D'Bridge 2.99
 * Origin: FyBBS (1:229/500)