shutdown

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
One of the first things they’d probably do is implement a socialistic policy of single payer health care. Are you going to argue that a single payer health system isn’t a socialistic type policy?[/quote]

That depends on how it’s designed. Socialism, by definition, is the government controlling the production and distribution of goods and services. Residential trash pick-up in San Diego is socialism. In some other cities it’s not. The VA medical system is (almost) pure socialism. The doctors, nurses and all other care providers are employees of the VA. (I think there are some exceptions, I believe some of the services are actually contracted out.) Medicare is not pure socialism. Care providers are not employees of the system. In fact medicare insurance can be traded directly into the private market, and I’m quite sure that doctors that work for Kaiser or other medicare advantage providers don’t think they’re employees of the government.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
Single payer is not socialist. For socialism to take hold, we.d have to nationalize major industries. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.[/quote]

How is it not more socialistic then what we have right now. You would replace all private insurance providers with a single government run and controlled insurance provider. Granted that doesn’t mean the government will or won’t take the next step and socialize the providers of medical services. Socialism is something that is done slowly over time with increasing socialistic policies.

Eventually a socialistic policy will come a long and take your assets. Maybe it will be rental properties. Government will dictate how much you can charge for rent or that you have to sell your property to the tenant at a government set rate. If I take your rental properties and give them to the tenants is that socialism? Are you ok with that because it’s for the greater good?

[SD Realtor]

You pegged it flyer. The president using his powers to favor one group over another. I doubt that if it was a planned tea party rally that it woukd have been allowed to occur.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=SD Realtor]You pegged it flyer. The president using his powers to favor one group over another. I doubt that if it was a planned tea party rally that it woukd have been allowed to occur.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s favoritism in this case. I believe that, with proper notice to the park service, any large first amendment gathering would have been allowed to proceed.

But regardless, the executive is allowed some leeway to prioritize. It doesn’t bother me.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]Socialism is something that is done slowly over time with increasing socialistic policies.
[/quote]

I don’t see evidence of that. Socialism happened through revolution.

Apparently “socialist” policies can be very good for capitalism and business. I’m not so concerned with ideology but more about what practically works in the real world.

The evidence is that single payer universal health care works very well. It’s no impediment to patients to seek fee for service care, outside the system, if they are willing and able to pay.

[SD Realtor]

Really so you believe if it were a tea party rally it would have be hilarious.en allowed to proceed? Hilarious. Hey maybe the tea party would get the application for non profit status granted in a timely manner or that confidential information about republican donors wasnt leaked. The pattern keeps recurring.

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]Really so you believe if it were a tea party rally it would have be hilarious.en allowed to proceed? Hilarious. Hey maybe the tea party would get the application for non profit status granted in a timely manner or that confidential information about republican donors wasnt leaked. The pattern keeps recurring.[/quote]

Well no, that wouldn’t be a recurring pattern. Because with the IRS non-scandal, it wasn’t just conservative groups that were targeted. It was both conservative and liberal groups. So no pattern here.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
The evidence is that single payer universal health care works very well. It’s no impediment to patients to seek fee for service care, outside the system, if they are willing and able to pay.[/quote]

Would it work well in those other countries if the American for profit system hadn’t developed a bunch of new drugs and medical technologies that they were able to access without paying the R&D costs. We don’t really know.

Socialistic policies tend to lack innovation and creativity. They tend to be able to deliver a service but not the best service. Obviously you’d probably rather be treated in a US hospital than a Cuban one even though Cuba has one of the highest ratios of doctors per patients in the world.

America has a public education system that is highly socialized and it performs pretty poorly. It provides education but most would agree it doesn’t exactly do it as well as many other countries. At the same time we have private College education that is the best in the world.

Pure capitalism means some people get left behind. Pure socialism means nobody gets ahead. Finding the right balance is difficult but it seems to me that leaning more capitalist tends to be better for society as a whole. See Germany vs France or the UK vs Italy. See the US vs Russia 30 years ago.

[FlyerInHi]

livin, I won’t debate the merits of capitalism or socialism.

But I don’t buy your main argument that there is a slippery slope to socialism. In fact, if you look at the rest of the world, there is a move away from socialism in many sectors.

Take airports which in the USA are publicly owned. In many “more socialist” countries, they have privatized airports into stock market listed corporations. So I don’t see the creep towards socialism.

As to health care, the technical innovations in the USA that make our system the “best” only marginally contribute to aggregate health. Take Lipitor that lowers cholesterol. you can achieve better results by having outreach to teach people to eat better.

From a policy standpoint, we could improve health and longevity by providing universal dental care. Lots of people suffer infections and dental problem that lead to earlier death.

It’s not about free everything for everyone, but a managed baseline of care. Above and beyond the baseline, you have insurance and fee for service.

we should look at science and data and implement what works. BTW that applies to fiscal and monetary policy as well.

As far a creep towards tyranny, I’m more concerned about the homeland security (military/intelligence) complex. If anyone wants to defund that, I’m willing to support the move. Rand Paul is mostly nuts, but in some cases, he makes sense.

[joec]

So for the people who are extremely against Obamacare, do they even need to buy insurance on their own or get coverage through their job already?

Initially, I was against it, but I am totally loving what they are planning to do with this.

I currently pay over 1k per month for me and my family. Coverage is really crappy for my spouse, but she still has maternity on her plan for now. With all the new plans, it’s included.

What’s really troubling is like getting a mortgage, if you’re self employed, even if you’re willing to pay up the wazoo for say maternity, no insurance company even offered it. When I was searching for insurance (self-employed), all over California, all of 1 company had it and it was in a really crappy plan (which we use now).

I’ve stated this before, but the problem with healthcare is that unless we are seriously willing to just let people die and deny people health/help, you have to have some kind of universal insurance. If you don’t pay for it, you already have the system now where emergency rooms are jammed and people without care use that anyways. It’s not fair that some people have to pay more and some people without money pay less, but again, unless we as a society are ok with simply letting people die, you need something.

The number 1 killer for Republicans longer term is if Obamacare finally decouples a job with healthcare, I think that’s a major improvement for everyoneand businesses included. Business have been getting raped with how much healthcare costs and not making it the responsibility of the company is a wonderful thing. For all businesses. A business shouldn’t be in the business to provide healthcare and just do what the biz is meant for.

I think it’s stupid that you have to get a job at a big company to get healthcare. What this leads to is lame workers just working for healthcare who maybe better off doing something else they are truly passionate about. You will have a much more smart re-alignment of the workforce.

Lastly, unless you really have shopped for insurance on your own, I don’t think some people understand how hard it is to find sometimes. I’m in excellent health and don’t smoke/drink, never had any major illness, extremely low fat/weight index, etc…All my current plans now cost more than any plan under the new system and I get better coverage too. Add in health credits for any median family of 4 and the insurance is downright cheap compared to anything you can ever find on your own.

Again, I didn’t vote for Obama last election, but if you need healthcare and even if you’re healthy and self employed, Obama care is truly awesome and if this works, Republicans are going to be losing for a long time I feel. I grew up Republican actually and am independent now since all the politicians suck, but until you price it out and try yourself, it’s easy to bash it. I know I did.

This…again, coming from someone who generally doesn’t like Obama to begin with and vote against any tax increases/bond deals, etc…

[scaredyclassic]

Decoupling pensions from business.

Decoupling health insurance from business. Should be good for business.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]Decoupling pensions from business.

Decoupling health insurance from business. Should be good for business.[/quote]

Yes. And, from everything I’ve ever seen, the countries who do this best are socialist countries with national healthcare and pension systems.

[livinincali]

[quote=joec]
I currently pay over 1k per month for me and my family. Coverage is really crappy for my spouse, but she still has maternity on her plan for now. With all the new plans, it’s included.

What’s really troubling is like getting a mortgage, if you’re self employed, even if you’re willing to pay up the wazoo for say maternity, no insurance company even offered it. When I was searching for insurance (self-employed), all over California, all of 1 company had it and it was in a really crappy plan (which we use now).
[/quote]

So you paid $12K/year for a plan with maternity because you had an addition to family. I assume you were worried that the hospital was going to charge 10s of thousands of dollars to have that child even if it was a standard delivery. Why does it cost 20, 30, 40, 50K for a relatively standard baby delivery procedure. 50 years ago it cost a couple hundred dollars that pretty much anybody could come up with out of pocket. Even with inflation it might cost a couple thousand dollars in today’s money. Why do you need to pay $12K year to cover something that should cost a couple grand. We know that is doesn’t because the hospital is probably billing north of $20K.

But I will agree that for some individuals Obamacare is going to be good. For others it’s going to not be so good. Your particular circumstances landed you on the good side of Obamacare. There will be others on the bad side of Obamacare. Some single male somewhere is helping you pay for your affordable maternity coverage.

[paramount]

“O” at work again: I noticed in the last couple of weeks I’ve been getting deluged with telemarketers.

https://www.donotcall.gov/

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
Why does it cost 20, 30, 40, 50K for a relatively standard baby delivery procedure. [/quote]

It doesn’t. Californians pay among the highest rates in the country, and average cost for a vaginal delivery without complications are below $20K. In some states it’s less than half that. But it has gone up dramatically. 27 years ago, I paid $1,400 at Grossmont Hospital.

[Author]

Posts