Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that some people are simultaneously saying that government will be terrible at healthcare, but somehow no company will be able to compete with its terrible healthcare. Doesn't the very idea of a free market suggest that people will choose the best provider, and so if the government is useless, nobody will buy?

Besides, I'm not actually seeing a problem with running the insurance companies out of business. Sounds like a rather good thing. Can we do the big financial firms next? (Not all banks, the big uber firms. You know the ones. The ones that worked very hard to run themselves out of business and then begged for more money.)

Quote: Original post by Promit
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that some people are simultaneously saying that government will be terrible at healthcare, but somehow no company will be able to compete with its terrible healthcare. Doesn't the very idea of a free market suggest that people will choose the best provider, and so if the government is useless, nobody will buy?

Surely you are smarter then that. Government services don't have to compete, they can subsidize all or part of their service with tax money making the percieved cost of health care extremely cheap or even free. It doesn't matter if their service is better or if they are run effeciently. They don't have to rely on providing a good service to survive.

This isn't an argument for or against government healthcare. I just think your comparison is bullshit.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Well I just hope that adding the 47 million uninsured won't clog the hospitals up too much (bad for everybody)

Wait. Are you saying that poor people should be denied hospital care so that they don't "clog up" the hospitals for rich people?

Rich or poor, if a person has to wait on a waiting list to get a procedure they need, it's going to hurt them.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by Promit
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that some people are simultaneously saying that government will be terrible at healthcare, but somehow no company will be able to compete with its terrible healthcare. Doesn't the very idea of a free market suggest that people will choose the best provider, and so if the government is useless, nobody will buy?

Surely you are smarter then that. Government services don't have to compete, they can subsidize all or part of their service with tax money making the percieved cost of health care extremely cheap or even free. It doesn't matter if their service is better or if they are run effeciently. They don't have to rely on providing a good service to survive.

This isn't an argument for or against government healthcare. I just think your comparison is bullshit.

bingo

This is why it's a little tiring to hear people say things like "ohhh the stupid republicans think this is socialized healthcare! it's NOT its just a public OPTION"

Well.. maybe an option now, but 10 to 20 years from now? I dont think so.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What exactly is wrong with that?

One prediction, which I already mentioned, is that this will open the door to taxpayer-funded shysters.

Quote:
Are you worried you won't be assigned a "culturally-aware" communications consultant yourself?

Maybe I am. Nobody ever catered to my parents' cultural requirements, I doubt they would now because they don't have powerful special interest groups working in their favor.

On the plus side, I might be able to start a business providing "cultural and linguistic" services to the government and charging a pretty penny for it -- we'll have to wait and see until the bill is passed and then observe how the bureaucrats go about implementing these provisions.

Quote:
Here's a thought. How about we have a government system where people who despise government systems for cultural reasons are hired to provide services to other people who despise government systems for cultural reasons? Sounds great don't it?

No way. That's already inherently too statist-authoritarian for my liking. You're implying some overarching power must decide what services are to be provided, and to whom, and is responsible (and what's more, authorized) to do the hiring.

Quote: Original post by Promit
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that some people are simultaneously saying that government will be terrible at healthcare, but somehow no company will be able to compete with its terrible healthcare. Doesn't the very idea of a free market suggest that people will choose the best provider, and so if the government is useless, nobody will buy?

There will be competition, of course, but it will only be affordable by the very rich who can shell out the extra money for much smaller-scale private care on top of the mandatory government health care taxes. If the government truly cared about competition, why don't they open up state-run corporations that collect money without the use of lethal force?

Quote: You know the ones. The ones that worked very hard to run themselves out of business and then begged for more money.)

I know exactly which ones. The ones that legislated themselves taxpayer-funded bailouts.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
I wasn't criticizing your source, I was criticizing the entire mindset that allowed you to construct a critical paragraph that began with "I was told that," in effect implying (yourself) that you relied on mere hearsay from a third party. That you don't think that is a problem and now want to hastily furnish a "source" after the fact shows that you still don't get the inherent wrongness of a public that makes judgments - and potentially acts upon them - based on nothing more than word of mouth.

Uh huh.

I didn't realize posting on the Lounge was equivalent to submitting a policy proposal. FWIW, when I was "told" about this, I was shown the relevant section of the bill as well. That's how I was able to find it from a different source so quickly.

Making judgments based on sources you trust is a necessity in a complicated world.

Quote: You said:

Quote: I was told that one of the proposed versions of the bill contained language that said information had to be provided in a "culturally appropriate" manner, or some such nonsense like that. Queue the "culturally-aware communications consultants"

There is nothing nonsensical in that paragraph. What it is, is a recognition of the inherent diversity in America - the millions of people who don't speak English, or don't employ common metaphors and idioms.

We don't need to recognize this. This is already the reality of America. How else is the information going to be communicated if not in a culturally and linguistically-appropriate manner?

Quote: It is saying that ensuring patient comprehension of medical communications is a priority - that a person who might not know the term "diabetes" should be further explained to using terms he/she does know, such as "the sugars."

This would already be taken care of. Many states lack an official language (and to my knowledge, there is no Federally-recognized legally official language of the United States), yet information is provided by the government in a "linguistically appropriate" manner nonetheless. What this might do, however, is provide a legal mandate for some sort of large-scale bullshit consulting scam, rather than much smaller local solutions.

It's a redundant and unnecessary provision.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Sarah Palin says Obama would have killed Trig.

Oh the irony
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/09/palin-special-needs/

Quote: From 2008:


As VP, it will be up to Palin to support her President’s policy approach. And John McCain’s policy will make it hard—if not impossible—for special needs children to get the coverage that they need.

The Wonk Room has written extensively on how John McCain will make it difficult for those with pre-existing conditions and special needs to get the care that they need. Jocelyn Guyer, a leading national advocate on children’s health, recently echoed our statements by telling the story of a 3-year-old child with Downs Syndrome in Ohio whose family has not been able to obtain health insurance coverage for her.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
This is why it's a little tiring to hear people say things like "ohhh the stupid republicans think this is socialized healthcare! it's NOT its just a public OPTION"

In case it wasn't clear from the last post, I would love to see the health insurance companies go broke. They're incredible leeches on society. I'm disappointed that the political landscape in this country is that not only do politicians not have the balls to go single payer, but the effort will likely fail entirely. Polls show massive favorabilities for public option (60%+) and it still won't happen.

In other news, I was wondering where our Lounge trolls had gone off too. Nice to see you gents back. Only Dredd's still missing I think. Enjoy your arguing with a community you don't contribute to in even the slightest ways! (And I don't mean Chris.)

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Sarah Palin says Obama would have killed Trig.

Oh the irony
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/09/palin-special-needs/

Quote: From 2008:


As VP, it will be up to Palin to support her President’s policy approach. And John McCain’s policy will make it hard—if not impossible—for special needs children to get the coverage that they need.

The Wonk Room has written extensively on how John McCain will make it difficult for those with pre-existing conditions and special needs to get the care that they need. Jocelyn Guyer, a leading national advocate on children’s health, recently echoed our statements by telling the story of a 3-year-old child with Downs Syndrome in Ohio whose family has not been able to obtain health insurance coverage for her.

She is just a big drama queen. She simply must say the grandest and most extreme thing she can think of at the time. Ready to make anything and everything personal. It doesn't have to make since, it doesn't have to be consistent with prior drama. As long it gets a reaction then great. Job done.

The thing that baffles me is how she can quit her job, sighting her inability to deal with what comes with that job(personal attacks), then have people still taking about her being a 2012 presidential candidate. The major criticism for her being she has no experience. Now she can't accrue any experience and should look like a quitter. Yet I have that sick feeling like its not that far fetched. People love that chick.

Anyway its not a thread about her its about health care. I say ask her what she would do, then do the opposite.