5 ms·

The reason we don't have a solution thus far is the fundamental disagreement between those who want a total government solution(public option/healthcare) and th

by shrnky 16y ago

The reason we don't have a solution thus far is the fundamental disagreement between those who want a total government solution(public option/healthcare) and those that want a complete free enterprise solution. The idea of the government deciding who lives and dies creeps me out. If you are democrat remember power is cyclical and one day a republican may be deciding whether you or your loved ones live or die. I don't have the perfect answer, but I know it's not either extreme.

rubyrescue 16y ago
I don't want to make this a huge political debate but i want to address the point that 'X deciding who lives and dies', where X=government. Currently we're just solving for a different value of X. Certainly people are deciding who lives and dies; life-saving care is denied specifically by insurers, and implicitly by the fact that many don't have any means to pay for care. That's not an argument for or against single payer or full govt-run healthcare (though i am for that - i just don't have time to get that into the discussion)...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Actually, I'm curious - do you have much evidence that insurers are deciding who lives or dies? I haven't even seen compelling evidence that having insurance at all (let alone variations within insurance) will determine whether you live or die.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jasonlotito 16y ago
> the government deciding who lives and dies creeps me out How is that any different than Acme Insurance deciding who lives and dies? And as far as the government is concerned, it's your fellow Americans deciding.
- jdminhbg 16y ago
  It's different because you can alternatively decide to patronize Beta Insurance. Don't take that as an argument that insurance is perfect, just as a response to your question about how it's different -- the reason people are more concerned when it's the government making decisions is that there's no recourse.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Patronizing Beta Insurance once your dead is difficult. =) Acme insurance denies my claim, getting Beta suddenly becomes difficult if not impossible. With no public option, I have no other recourse. Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors. Their is a base line, and you can still get private insurance and go to privately run facilities. You make the distinction too black and white in your original post. You can have a public and private insurance. It's funny. My wife, a Canadian, talks with my sister-in-law, and has some family down in the US. Sometimes they bring up health insurance issues, and my wife is flabbergasted at the lack of... well... anything. The sheer number of services provided here is overwhelming, and this includes preventative services. Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. =)
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors. Oh really? The doctors decide whether the pharmacy has a given drug? The doctors decide how many doctors are available in a given area? The doctors decide what equipment is in a given hospital, where the hospital is, etc?
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        I can play this game, too. > Oh really? No, not always. My wife and I also have a say, though we usually take the advice of the doctor. So, between us and my doctor, yes, 100%.
dhume 16y ago
A public option is not a total government solution.
loewenskind 16y ago
>those that want a complete free enterprise solution Those that want a "complete free enterprise solution" don't understand how the market works and should be ignored (Hint: Market elasticity). What should be done is looking at what is done in all other developed countries and try to create the best system from that (not all of them have "free" healthcare, but none of them are ignorant enough to try a "complete free enterprise solution").

by shrnky 16y ago

rubyrescue 16y ago

I don't want to make this a huge political debate but i want to address the point that 'X deciding who lives and dies', where X=government. Currently we're just solving for a different value of X. Certainly people are deciding who lives and dies; life-saving care is denied specifically by insurers, and implicitly by the fact that many don't have any means to pay for care. That's not an argument for or against single payer or full govt-run healthcare (though i am for that - i just don't have time to get that into the discussion)...

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Actually, I'm curious - do you have much evidence that insurers are deciding who lives or dies? I haven't even seen compelling evidence that having insurance at all (let alone variations within insurance) will determine whether you live or die.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jasonlotito 16y ago

> the government deciding who lives and dies creeps me out How is that any different than Acme Insurance deciding who lives and dies? And as far as the government is concerned, it's your fellow Americans deciding.

jdminhbg 16y ago
It's different because you can alternatively decide to patronize Beta Insurance. Don't take that as an argument that insurance is perfect, just as a response to your question about how it's different -- the reason people are more concerned when it's the government making decisions is that there's no recourse.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Patronizing Beta Insurance once your dead is difficult. =) Acme insurance denies my claim, getting Beta suddenly becomes difficult if not impossible. With no public option, I have no other recourse. Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors. Their is a base line, and you can still get private insurance and go to privately run facilities. You make the distinction too black and white in your original post. You can have a public and private insurance. It's funny. My wife, a Canadian, talks with my sister-in-law, and has some family down in the US. Sometimes they bring up health insurance issues, and my wife is flabbergasted at the lack of... well... anything. The sheer number of services provided here is overwhelming, and this includes preventative services. Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. =)
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Living in Canada, I've never had to deal with the government making decisions, it's always been the doctors. Oh really? The doctors decide whether the pharmacy has a given drug? The doctors decide how many doctors are available in a given area? The doctors decide what equipment is in a given hospital, where the hospital is, etc?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      I can play this game, too. > Oh really? No, not always. My wife and I also have a say, though we usually take the advice of the doctor. So, between us and my doctor, yes, 100%.

dhume 16y ago

A public option is not a total government solution.

loewenskind 16y ago

>those that want a complete free enterprise solution Those that want a "complete free enterprise solution" don't understand how the market works and should be ignored (Hint: Market elasticity). What should be done is looking at what is done in all other developed countries and try to create the best system from that (not all of them have "free" healthcare, but none of them are ignorant enough to try a "complete free enterprise solution").