The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Of course, even if you have insurance, there is no guarantee that you would be covered when you get sick. If your illness is a very expensive one, the insurance company will find a way to not pay up. (Talk about "death panels"!)

[Alex]

And a select portion of the poor take on the trappings of the bourgeois and oppress those they can. And we start over.

But I won't be there. Unfortunately I'm in the bourgeoisie. Any chance of getting a guillotine out of a sense of style?

[scaeagles]

I do not believe the free market necessarily means that there are winners and losers. What I choose to spend my money on does not make me a loser, and i have control (for the most part, anyway) of where I spend my money.

That aside, and completely understanding what you have said otherwise, GD, what I think what frustrates me in this whole national debate is the way the insurance industry is viewed. They came into existance to make a profit, so I don't know why they are slammed for trying to do so. Now, mind you, if they violate the terms of their agreements, they should face litigation or criminal investigation, but I do not fault them for trying to make a profit.

This is why I am against the public option. It is not fair competition for the government, which runs a deficit without blinking an eye and does not need to make a profit, to be in direct competition with the insurance companies.

Should doctors work without making much money? My bill for the second surgery for my achalasia I had was over 40K, and that only included two nights in the hospital. I really do not recall the percentage of that which went to the surgeon, but she was damn skilled and I think worth a whole lot. Is it immoral for her to profit on my illness? She sure does (or at least did) drive a nice car. What is the difference between her making a high salary and the insurance companies making a profit?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What is the difference between her making a high salary and the insurance companies making a profit?

In short, because your surgeon doesn't stand to make more money by denying some people access to her services.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In short, because your surgeon doesn't stand to make more money by denying some people access to her services.

Did she really need to earn 10-12K (or whatever it was) for a 5 hour procedure? That's pretty steep.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Did she really need to earn 10-12K (or whatever it was) for a 5 hour procedure? That's pretty steep.

What she earns and who has access are two different questions. Whether I support changes to compensation for medical professionals (single-provider being the flip side of the coin, but not the only option) is irrelevant in regards to the question of access to health care. While some of the same questions are raised, I have no trouble drawing a clear and distinct line between people providing actual medical services being compensated for the work they do vs. insurance companies maximizing profits by selecting who and who does not get access to those services. Both sides present similar challenges and issues, however the latter side is responsible only for maximizing their and their stockholders wealth, while the former is responsible for actually maintaining healthy people. So I will give them some benefit of the doubt that I will not afford the insurers.

[Alex]

Would you support the elimination of Medicare and and the health services of the VA?

Both of those systems are much farther down the road to government healthcare than any of the current proposals.

[scaeagles]

The VA is limited in their scope by definition to veterens. This is part of the agreement made between those who serve(d) and the government, and in that way I don't really view that in the same light. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

Medicare.....there are numerous problems with the system, as I believe there are with Social Security, but it is now an "entitlement" that people have paid into and should therefore get the benefits promised. I beleive the problems evident with medicare are a small foreshadowing of what would happen should a government option become available.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The VA is limited in their scope by definition to veterens. This is part of the agreement made between those who serve(d) and the government, and in that way I don't really view that in the same light. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

But should it ever have been created in the first place? What if there were a proposal to expand the VA to cover not just current and former members of the military but current and former employees of the federal government (it would, after all just be part of an agreement made between those who serve the government.

If government run healthcare is odious would it not be far better to just put those veterans on private insurance and private provision?

I beleive the problems evident with medicare are a small foreshadowing of what would happen should a government option become available.

As a fellow conservative how does it make you feel to watch the contortions necessary for many opposing the current bill to simultaneously stand as staunch defenders of Medicare from the ravaging visigoths of national healthcare while also considering Medicare doomed to failure and a well established incremental step towards socialism?

[BarTopDancer]

Heath care should not be a for profit industry for people other than doctors and the people who work in the offices/hospitals. Their profit should be their salary. I have no problem with doctors making a lot of money. I have a huge issue with the CEOs of insurance companies making a ton of money in bonuses based upon how much money they didn't spend in denial of care.