|
|
#41
03-14-2007, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Who said anything about "great" care? Begging the question 101. [/ QUOTE ] Relax man, I'm not some socialist who thinks government health care is automatically awesome. I probably should have said "better" if that would make you happy. [/ QUOTE ] NT RLY. That's still begging the same question. [/ QUOTE ] I meant one state's hypothetical free health care being better than another state's free health care, not necessarily better than private health care. Jeez, it's like your just looking for any statist bias to bash when it's not even there. [/ QUOTE ] Fine, I agree with you then. But when you said "I'm not some socialist who thinks government health care is automatically awesome. I probably should have said "better"..." I presumed you were still applying the adjective "better" (instead of "great" or "awesome") to "government health care". You never made it clear until now you were comparing one social system to another and not to an unregulated market. I'll withdraw this particular objection now that you've made it clear what you meant. 
|
|
#42
03-14-2007, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
I think we should clarify something here: Are we talking about preventative health or are we talking the whole kitten caboodle (always want to write that). I think many could make a compelling case for preventative health insurance especially for children, but when it comes to the complete package, state funded health care systems are generally failures due to inefficiencies and other aforementioned reasons. It seems almost better to have the state provide different types of insurance and have the residents pick their plans. With economies of scale, it could provide some savings (which would inevitably be eaten up by bureaucracy and red tape)
|
|
#43
03-15-2007, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
|
|
#44
03-15-2007, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
And now I know why I haven't--thanks for the info
and sorry for the slight hijack too.
|
|
#45
03-15-2007, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
Wouldn't this just introduce a whole new level of nightmare paperwork/claims? Right now the medical field is being overrun because there is so much red tape involved in every patient. Things need to be coded properly, claims submitted, etc. It's a HUGE hassle. I realize that government health care (whether state or national) simply replaces the more private plans so you would think that the net gain/loss would be a wash, but if you have any experience with trying to go through the government medical system (say, the VA or Medicaid) you would understand how bad it sucks.
Also, this is likely to exacerbate physician supply issues. States with socialized medicine are likely to lose physicians because reimbursements from government sources are low. They're so low in many cases that it's not even worth practicing. Many physicians turn away Medicaid patients and a number turn away Medicare patients because they are money losers. People aren't going to like it when all of a sudden no neurosurgeons or high-risk OBs are left in their state - this is already happening in certain states with particularly ridiculous med-mal laws.
|
|
#46
03-15-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
I realize that government health care (whether state or national) simply replaces the more private plans so you would think that the net gain/loss would be a wash [/ QUOTE ] Who actually thinks that? Many people think it's a gain, since government monopolies don't have to "waste" money on advertising &c.
|
|
#47
03-15-2007, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I realize that government health care (whether state or national) simply replaces the more private plans so you would think that the net gain/loss would be a wash [/ QUOTE ] Who actually thinks that? Many people think it's a gain, since government monopolies don't have to "waste" money on advertising &c. [/ QUOTE ] I'm talking about from a physician's perspective, which most people ignore. I have to file a crapload of paperwork and deal with B.S. from private insurance the same as I do with government plans. Government plans however tend to be more inflexible because that's how bureaucracies are - call in with a problem and everyone is lazy and not willing to take responsibility for the problem. Private plans have better employees but try to screw you for their own profits. They at least are a little more flexible - if you can prove a medical need it's a little easier to get things through that aren't standard.
|
|
#48
03-15-2007, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Public Health Care - Why not at state level first?
[ QUOTE ]
It won't work state by state, because unless you force it on the whole country at once, people will just move to states that aren't drowning under the social and economic cost of socialized health care. [/ QUOTE ] Just so. Google Tenn Care or maybe Tenncare or maybe it's just blown away by now. It akin to forcing insurance companys to take all applicants without discriminating for risk. It will fail.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
