Yeah, we get it, Alex. Nothing is 'free,' by your definition. Stop getting hung up on that one (admitedly dominant) meaning of the word.

"Free" when applied to healthcare is meant to mean the "free" as in police services, fire services, public schools, etc. Meaning, no money shelled out of your pocket one instance at a time. Everyone knows "free" healthcare is paid through taxes.

Please try and get over it. It's a shortcut phrase. Language is like that sometimes.


Often.

The idea that "free" is now a synonym for "government service" is scary all on its own.

I have to ask you Alex, is healthcare the only public service that you don’t want to see paid for by the government? Do you also object to the government providing police and fire protection free to all who need it? Did you pay them for their services the last time you had to call them? If not, why not?

I presume your stance include public schools, what about “free” hospitals and clinics? Museums? Public parks? Historic monuments? Should all of these be privatized; sold off to the highest bidder in the name of Capitalism? Everyone has to pay, and if you can’t afford it… SOL! Sorry poor Americans, you can’t educate your children, visit Yellowstone, Gettysburg, or the Smithsonian. These are only for those who can pay. Your house is on fire? Your credit’s not good? You gotta hand over the cash first before the firefighters arrive! You’re sick? No money, no medication, no free lunches.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m as fond of Capitalism as the next guy. But Capitalism taken to extremes is as evil as any other system taken to the extreme. There are just some things that shouldn’t be subject to the profit motive. I (and a growing number of my fellow Americans, it would seem) believe that health care is one of those things.

Thanks for the link, Alex. Some interesting points. I wonder how pooling would work here considering the vast geographic space the US occupies. Who'd draw the lines? What I found frustrating about Sicko was that Moore basically indicts all Washington politicians (including HRC) as being in the pocket of big industry and then posits a vague solution that would have to have Washington oversight.

Yes, there are services the government should provide.

But going to a single payer, government controlled system does not remove the "profit motive" it just turns it around. You can always justify adding more police or more fire stations to an environment? So why don't we have a firetruck for every block? Because it would cost too much so you try to create a balance between too few firemen and too expensive firemen. It is a political profit motive. "What is the most we can take from the taxpayers before they vote for somebody else" is just the same thing as "what is the most we can charge the customers before they stop buying."

Instead of a drone in a cubical in a suburban Minneapolis industrial park deciding that Treatment X is too expensive for you, a drone in a cubical in a suburban Washington, D.C., will make that decision. "Free" health care is not going to mean that you can go into your local hospital and get a "free" full body MRI every day just for prevention.

I am also interested in what would happen to the idea of malpractice since these rationers would generally be indemnified by official immunity from the choices they make (same reason you can't sue Rumsfeld for his poor decisions in managing the war). I have no idea how other countries handle that question so I'd be pleased to see an answer.

Also, police and fire are "emergency services." Not the sole source. We already privatize these services in non-emergency situations. The All-Star Game in San Francisco tonight will be billed for the police services they use in security and local traffic control. You need a fire inspection for your new building? That isn't free.

I have no problem with the idea that parts of the health care entirety are most appropriate for governmental provision (though I do balk at the idea that if Bill Gates has a car accident I not only pay for the firemen who extract him from the car but would also have to pay for the hospital setting his broken leg) and that there need to be certain social safety nets for those unable to provide for themselves.

I'm certainly not saying the current system is perfect and I would certainly agree that there is an incentive for insurance companies to rip off the insured and there are things that can and should be done to diminish those incentives.

But one root problem is that we want "insurance" that isn't actually insurance and get really upset when the insurance companies behave as if what they are selling is actually insurance.

But if you're going to compare health care to police services you need to compare it to the whole thing, in my opinion. We pay for the policeman who arrests the shoplifter but not the security guards who caught him.

In the very long term, earlier in this thread, I also mentioned some societal problems I have with giving complete control of our personal health to the government, the biggest of which is that the government will then eventually take control of anything that can be argued as impacting that health.

The problem is that many people DON'T know that "free" health care is paid via taxes. While all involved in this discussion and even most all on this board in general may know how things would work, I don't believe the masses do. I see a MAJOR fallacy in continuing to call this "free" health care - it is misleading and deceptive.

I firmly believe that individuals are generally fairly smart, but that the masses are generally pretty stupid.

Why is the term "taken to the extremes" coming up? This isn't about any extreme. It is simply a question of whether health care should be brought under the wings of the US Government. And I have yet to see anything that would indicate that the government could do even as good as what we have now. Most indicators point in the other direction.

And darn it - Alex already addressed the police/fire example far better than I could imagine. However, I will add one more tidbit: I don't know of any city that isn't constantly in need of additional police - there always seem to be a shortage.

Speaking for the masses, I just want to personally thank you for showing us the way!

Say, KB, did you know we (the stupid masses) also pay 12 billion dollars a month for war?

Of course, we can pay for war, but God help those who would like us to pay for health, right Alex?

Thank you both for setting us straight!

I could become a Mexican citizen, then cross the border back into the US, and then I'd get free healthcare. That's FREE FREE as in, no taxes or anything.

Many of the arguments I hear against nationalized health care (or any health care reform period) come down to “Why should my taxes pay for someone else’s health care?” I was trying to point out that this argument, taken to the extremes, could create an America where only the “haves” can access basic government services.

Most will agree that some services should be provided to all Americans for free (or “without direct user fees”, if you prefer). The main argument is where to draw the line in the sand. Some of us believe health care is on one side of the line, some argue that it is on the other. All we’re really accomplishing here is pushing little piles of sand around.

Not true. If you are here without documentation you are ineligible to Medicare, and the only thing Medi-Cal (Medicaid in other states) will pay for is emergency room services or pregnancy related services.

Under Medi-Cal regulations, if you have income, you may have to pay a portion of your medical expenses yourself. It's called "Share of Cost" and it works like a deductible.

And don't forget... undocumented aliens do pay sales tax on things they buy here. And if they are working "above the table" they are paying income tax as well.