Only the greedy and self absorbed wouldn't want a health care system that provides for all.

[Klukie]

I am so sick and tired of this whole discussion on health care. Is this a good bill? Is it a handout for insurance companies? Blah blah blah!!! I really think that our nation needs to have a philosophical discussion on importance of societal health. I want a discussion that goes to the question of whether or not our health should be an industry. I want a discussion that goes beyond the stupid rhetoric and addresses the morality of human health being traded on wall street for profit. Have we not progressed enough as a society to realize that certain aspects of development should be off limits when it comes to the almighty capitalistic system. The profit margin has taken the nobility out of an honored profession and we as a society just accept it. Nobody should have the power to deem one human life more worthy than another, yet that is exactly what our society has allowed to happen. We could do so much better than this...we need to do better than this. We need to begin a new discussion.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Amen

:fistbump:

[Desertrose]

2. I completely agree with you. nt

[snagglepuss]

3. I wonder if you've read Philip Slater's Pursuit of Loneliness. If not I think

you'd find it interesting as Slater discusses the philosophical and pyschological reasons for Americans shunning something as important as universal healthcare. The book written in the 70's is uncanny as Slater's observations are prescient.

[Johonny]

4. is there any choice to it being an industry?

Industry refers to the production of an economic good (either material or a service) within an economy. Doesn't health care have to be an industry?

[Klukie]

5. Yes it does have to be an industry

I should have said a for profit industry. I understand that folks that work in health care are providing a service and they should be able to make a living doing that. I have a real problem with the for profit hospitals and for profit insurance companies that have taken over the industry.

[applegrove]

6. Good luck getting the GOP into a national discussion. The only discussion they

will accept involves nazis or socialists.

[hansberrym]

7. Here is something I wrote while the PPACA plan was in Congress.

As opposed to those who insist that drastic reform of the health insurance system in the US is needed, I would argue that we already have the optimum mix of government and private insurance. Note that I say optimum, as I am not a utopian, I do not believe there is a perfect system that could solve all of our problems.

In our current heath insurance system, individuals get health insurance through their employer, purchase individually, receive Medicaid if in poverty, or may receive Medicare if disabled or retired. Those whose resources are above poverty levels but find they are unable to afford any plan face the risk that should they suffer serious injury or illness they will have pay out of pocket and possibly wipe out all savings. However, emergency health care is not denied, so there is in place right now a safety net, in other words a defacto health insurance plan for all.

Let us be clear that the argument put forth by both supporters of the PPACA plan and supporters of single payer is that receiving a comprehensive health insurance plan, not merely health care, should be the goal.

Claims that those who oppose further government involvement in health insurance are merely selfish fall flat when one considers how much Americans already pay for the health care of those unable to pay for their own care. Those with private health insurance subsidize others who can’t afford insurance in the form of costs which are inflated to cover services to the uninsured who are unable to pay. Furthermore working people currently pay into government health systems in the form of Medicare payroll deductions and also through taxes paid to state governments, as state governments also provide a share of Medicaid costs. The “selfishness” claim is further countered when one considers that private insurance plans themselves are forms of cost sharing. In employer provided insurance, family plans are usually a set rate so that small families subsidize larger families, also the healthy pay at same rate as those who use such plans much more often. Along with the cost sharing aspect, employer provided plans frequently have co-pays and other restrictions which encourage personal responsibility regarding use of the plan.

As it stands now, most Americans get their health insurance through private insurers while government provides for the truly needy and well as many retirees. That is how it should be. Were government to take a larger role in providing health insurance, it would weaken its ability to carry out its essential role of unbiased referee. The principles of good governance tell us that no one should be both the referee and a player, and so the government should avoid as much as possible this conflict of interest. That the government can not completely avoid this conflict of interest is not a valid rationale for abandoning the principal altogether.

While the mix of private and government run health insurance is more or less as it should be, that does not mean that nothing should be done to improve either. Private insurance could certainly be improved to make it more portable and to create a more competitive market with greater variety of plans. For instance comprehensive plans like HMOs might work well for middle and upper wage earners with families, but plans with very low payments and high co-pays might suit younger or single persons better. Also government ought to fulfill its proper role and provide better oversight/regulation of for-profit insurers to avoid the fraudulent refusals of payments that supporters of Single Payer cite as evidence against for-profits. Current government provided plans could also be reviewed to eliminate fraud and waste. The $50 billion is sovings from increased scrutiny of medicare payments didn't need PPACA -it should have been done long ago.

Lastly the administration’s plans to cut costs by gaining access to everyone’s digitized heath records and mandating that everyone purchase a health insurance plan ought to be met with a big HELL NO! This complete abridgement of the Fourth Amendment we are told is necessary to hold down health costs. But if giving up our personal and economic freedoms is the cost, the supposed gain is not worth the price. The deal is far worse when one considers that the promise of cost savings, above and beyond what could be accomplished by tweaks to the current system of insurance, is a completely empty promise