?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Batsignal

Not getting it

Posted on 2009.09.29 at 22:08
Current Location: US, Massachusetts, Middlesex, Lexington
Tags:

Can someone explain, really explain, the arguments against the public health care option?

Posted via LiveJournal.app.


Comments:


Dave
theonetruetiny at 2009-09-30 02:17 (UTC) (Link)
That depends. Do you require that actual facts be used as evidence against it?
Jonathan
theservant at 2009-09-30 02:46 (UTC) (Link)
I'm hoping that there are some, that it isn't ALL just stupidness and corruption.
Dave
theonetruetiny at 2009-09-30 04:49 (UTC) (Link)
The only real issue based opposition is that it will add to the budget for the first three years. After that, it becomes deficit neutral. It will also, in short order, greatly increase economic mobility that may create upward pressure on real wages, thus increasing taxable income, which will be a net gain for the government, not to mention all those people that can start businesses and change careers for the better once they don't live in fear of not being able to choose between one child's life and the other three children's ability to go to college or stay in their home. It is socialism. It is literally the core tenant of pro-labor democratic socialism. We've just been programmed to fear that phrase for forty years. I'm just not willing to put up with the right's BS that social democracy is evil anymore.

Basically, we've been lied to by the right. The free market was supposed to keep prices low. The problem is that medicine can't exist in a free market. People that need health care are not seeking it based on price. They're not buying a car and weighing the options o one or the other. They're seeking needed care. The very notion that people should think about cost when considering a necessary procedure or medication, which the right wing has advocated for years, is simply monstrous. If you're poor and need to see a doctor, it's not elective. It's to alleviate a medical condition. The only people that truly, freely consider price in their medical considerations are people seeking elective treatments or young, healthy people that are playing the odds that they generally do not have major medical issues and can simply not bother with medical coverage. It's not a free market, its a hindrance to the free market. The only people that really don't want to have to pay anything for medical care are the young healthy people who, again, aren't likely to need major coverage. They tend toward libertarianism. Libertarianism also tends towards social Darwinism which is a convenient way to not have to care about anyone but yourself, and is a convenient way or people in power to justify some pretty awful things.

The rest of the major points: death panels, not being able to choose your doctor, medical rationing, massive debt, Medicare bankruptcy, etc. are the result of a nearly fact free existence on the part of insurance companies and the right wing of the American population.

Sorry to get a bit long winded on your LJ, but this is an issue that tends to get me on a bit of a roll.
(Deleted comment)
Jonathan
theservant at 2009-09-30 02:47 (UTC) (Link)
No, I think today he is Marx/Lenin/Stalin. He'll be Hitler again on Thursday.
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2009-09-30 07:01 (UTC) (Link)
I've also tried to engage in this discussion. As you know I'm pretty right wing in general, but I support socialized health-care. It seems most of the arguments are either A: based on false perceptions/misunderstandings of what's in the bill, B: a general distrust of government that those bastards can't be trusted and shouldn't be given another giant beurocracy to screw up, C: a generalized fear of losing what you have through change, D: ideological opposition not connected to the particular results (extreme free-marketeers), or E: people who are afraid that by controlling the cost of medical products, we will decrease the money available for and incentive to do R&D, thus depriving 'the World' of the many medical advances driven by the high returns they receive.

E is against the health-care reform in general, not just the public option:
'E' is the only one which makes any sense at all. It may be true. Even the things developed here (Israel) and in Europe are largely made profitable by selling them to the US market. Drugs are cheap here, by government fiat. That's why the biggest Israeli drug company (TEVA) makes most of its profits on generics. I'm particularly sensitive to this 'speed of medical advances' argument because my son just benefitted from surgical techniques and optical advances which were only made in the last 2-3 years. It is amazing.

I'm not won over by this argument. I believe this is a theoretical, long-term loss, which has to be weighed against a definite and immediate gain (health care for an extra 50 million people), which also meets a moral imperative. However, I could see reasonably arguing it the other way.
Jonathan
theservant at 2009-09-30 13:05 (UTC) (Link)
See, that is what I am looking for. A genuine argument, whether I agree with it or not. I think that some of these points are arguments against a single payer system rather than a government run competitor, which should theoretically unleash market forces on the system. It seems that if it is run badly, it would just sort of peter out, like Bezeq would if it had to compete.
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2009-09-30 14:31 (UTC) (Link)
Again: Devil's advocate.

The argument against that is that a government run body doesn't have to turn a profit, so they can A: make artificially low prices against which 'free-market' companies will have to compete and B: if they do badly they won't 'go out of business' because they can't.
electric misfit love machine
eyelid at 2009-09-30 16:28 (UTC) (Link)
I think that while R&D companies may make MORE money selling in the US, I cannot see them realistically just throwing up their hands and refusing to do any more R&D just because they can't make the astronomical profits they currently make in the US.
eitanhalevy
eitanhalevy at 2009-09-30 19:41 (UTC) (Link)
Right, that's why it wouldn't stop development, just slow it down dramitcally. As in, "I'm sorry sir, the cancer medicine you need hasn't been developed yet because of budget cuts. Come back in 5 years if you're still alive."
jonnymoon at 2009-10-02 21:05 (UTC) (Link)

Response to Public Option (part 1)

EL> I've also tried to engage in this discussion. As you know I'm pretty right wing in general, but I support socialized health-care.

Then you can't genuinely claim to be "pretty right wing". That's a canard.


EL> It seems most of the arguments are either A: based on false perceptions/misunderstandings of what's in the bill, B: a general distrust of government that those bastards can't be trusted and shouldn't be given another giant beurocracy to screw up, C: a generalized fear of losing what you have through change, D: ideological opposition not connected to the particular results (extreme free-marketeers), or E: people who are afraid that by controlling the cost of medical products, we will decrease the money available for and incentive to do R&D, thus depriving 'the World' of the many medical advances driven by the high returns they receive.

EL> E is against the health-care reform in general, not just the public option:
'E' is the only one which makes any sense at all. It may be true. Even the things developed here (Israel) and in Europe are largely made profitable by selling them to the US market. Drugs are cheap here, by government fiat. That's why the biggest Israeli drug company (TEVA) makes most of its profits on generics. I'm particularly sensitive to this 'speed of medical advances' argument because my son just benefitted from surgical techniques and optical advances which were only made in the last 2-3 years. It is amazing.

A: The most common preconceptions/misunderstandings are generated by people who haven't read or don't understand the bill...or the liberal media goverment mouthpieces who mindlessly, unquestioningly re-broadcast Obama's half-truths without any sort of checking of facts. I ask you, have you actually read the bill? I spent three days reading it, about a month ago, and I keep up with changes made to it.

B: "General distrust"? What an incredible understatement. It is not as much a "general distrust" as it is an absolute fact that the government has NEVER run any program correctly, not AmTrak, not the Postal Service, and most certainly not Social Security (almost broke) or Medicaid/Medicare (RIFT with abuses/fraud). With such a record, it is almost a no-brainer that we should not give over nearly 1/6 of our economy to be run by this collection of retards!

C: "generalized fear of losing what you have to change", again, not a generalized fear but fact, if this abomination passes with a "Public Option". The Whitehouse (incompetently, unbelievably) estimates that only about 5% of the populace will switch to this plan, but the lie is that if you lose your plan you are REQUIRED to sign up for this plan! The end result will be that private insurance companies cannot compete, and will go out of business. (If you doubt what I'm saying, READ THE BILL. It IS in there.) This fear of losing what you have will be REALIZED. Obama spreads half-truths, "You will not be required to change doctors", no but if your doctor is not on the goverment plan, you will not be able to go to him any more. What an artful lie. What masterful deception. What a liar.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-02 21:06 (UTC) (Link)

Response to Public Option (part 2)

D: "Ideological opposition not connected to the particular results (extreme free-marketeers)" If by this you mean, I shouldn't be forced to pay for your healthcare, and you are labeling that extreme, then I suppose there is no hope for you...you are hopelessly socialist and I invite you to move to another country which is. America is and must remain capitolist. If by this you mean, "Democrats are hopeless liberals and socialists", then you are correct, and they have no business destroying a Free Market system to install their socialist takeover.

E: Is against healthcare reform in general, which is not an arguement I can address except to say that a lot of people out there are convinced that this bill (HR3200) is the only chance we have left. Generally speaking, this is a Strawman arguement, this bill is NOT the only hope we have and there is no reason to rush it through without addressing it and allowing every American to know what his or her legislators are planning to saddle them with.

On the topic of "Public Option" or "Singler Payer" system, it can be summed up as this: The government creates a method whereby they pay everyone's insurance costs out of the public treasury. This means that if you make money, you will be tasked to pay for the insurance of those who don't. It's as simple as that. The net result is that the government-created organization takes business from the Free Market and causes insurance carriers to go out of business. The catastrophic results are many, as the government destroys competition and forces carriers out of business, it causes massive upheaval in the people who LIKED their insurance, and forces them to find another insurance carrier, or, more likely, to go with the government program (which is what Obama wants). As more and more insurance carriers go out of business, the costs on the government to maintain their control over healthcare skyrocket, as a result taxes go up to cover the new influx of people. Simultaneously, to "cut costs", service suffers...and you can't quit government care--no other insurers, remember? Or if there are, they are so fiendishly expensive (to maintain service and compete simultaneously) that you can't afford to get OFF government healthcare.

So, when you set up a Public Option, you get into a situation where it costs MORE to insure MORE people (simple math) and at the same time service declines (because you want to cut costs) but you can't do anything about it because there is no competition. If you are really abused by the system somehow, you have no recourse for grievances, because you can't sue the government!

You end up paying MORE to get LESS...and to add insult to injury, you are paying for all those illegal aliens out there that Obama just granted AMNESTY to.


I'm not won over by this argument. I believe this is a theoretical, long-term loss, which has to be weighed against a definite and immediate gain (health care for an extra 50 million people), which also meets a moral imperative. However, I could see reasonably arguing it the other way.

But you're so enamored with your friends, I doubt you even read what I just wrote. Well, go ahead and pat each other on the back for destroying healthcare.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-05 18:00 (UTC) (Link)
If you really, really want an explaination the arguments against public healthcare, don't look to your liberal friends for any facts.

If you are only willing to listen to other people of like minds, then obviously you really don't want to know, you're only looking for validation of your opinions.

But if you want an opposing viewpoint, there are plenty out there, complete with facts and useful information...and not all of them are Beck & Rush fans.
Jonathan
theservant at 2009-10-05 18:50 (UTC) (Link)
I haven't seen many, aside from yourself, who aren't GOP shills or just transparent liars.
jonnymoon at 2009-10-05 19:02 (UTC) (Link)
I guess I would ask, where have you been looking?

But for that, I must ask you...do transparent liars upset you more than liars who are slightly more clever?

Are you upset at all at Obama's lies?
Previous Entry  Next Entry