McCain on Healthcare....

[MGMorden]

Just turn back the hands of time ...would eliminate $250 billion/year in government/taxpayer sponsored research

Think about the quality of medical care available if you turned back the hands of time.  Government funded research isn't so bad - it's part of the reason why our medical infrastructure is one of the most advanced in the world. 

Now I do think that taxpayer funded research should "go back" to the taxpayers (a company patenting and selling a drug for high prices that was paid for with tax money is ridiculous) though.  All in all though, if we went to pay as you go I have a feeling the quality of our medical care would plummet regardless of your financial situation (well, the rich of our country would likely just travel elsewhere when they needed care, much like the rich of other countries often travel here now).

[Cabin4]

oh snap !
just say it when we are reduced to total dependence on Govt. for everything the libs. will have won and freedom will be a lost cause !

And once these entitlement plans are put in place, there's NO going back. Another one of our freedoms will be eliminated. Bit by bit, the Liberals are destroying the entire reason why this country came into existence to begin with.

I promise you, that 100 years from now, this will be a completely socialist communist country. The average American is too stupid to see it coming. All they see is free things and assumed solutions to wide spread issues. Too bad the solution provider they are choosing (the Government) is worse then the problem.

.
So, your ideal healthcare system would be none at all. Just turn back the hands of time and no insurance pyramid schemes, no government subsidies to individuals or industries, or any entitlements or research funding. Just good ole pay as you go --CASH on the barrelhead for services and goodbye.  Well, I'm all for it...would eliminate $250 billion/year in government/taxpayer sponsored research, eliminate alot of paper pushers, and government meddling and us taxpayers would be out of the racket altogether; and in about 5 years the market would come to bear and prices would stabilize after a little suffering here and there.  Biggest problem for doctors would be collecting bills for a while, but eventually they would have to live like everybody else.  I think it is a great idea whos time has come in the land of the capitalist...only thing the gov would have to do is level and make fair the playing field and watch out for the dreaded organization of monopolies.
BTW,,,do you play golf...?

..TM7

No, I'm not advocating no health care. I am saying NO government run health care. Keep uncle Sam OUT, thats what I'm saying.

The free market has handled health care just fine as you point out! Leave it alone, the idiots in washington will F it up far beyond your wildest imagination. 280 million of us do not have a problem with the system. If you think for one minuet washington is going to lower costs or improve service, your living in a dream world.

[torpedoman]

Just turn back the hands of time ...would eliminate $250 billion/year in government/taxpayer sponsored research

Think about the quality of medical care available if you turned back the hands of time.  Government funded research isn't so bad - it's part of the reason why our medical infrastructure is one of the most advanced in the world. 

Now I do think that taxpayer funded research should "go back" to the taxpayers (a company patenting and selling a drug for high prices that was paid for with tax money is ridiculous) though.  All in all though, if we went to pay as you go I have a feeling the quality of our medical care would plummet regardless of your financial situation (well, the rich of our country would likely just travel elsewhere when they needed care, much like the rich of other countries often travel here now).

WRONG the rich go to india for treatment that is superior to what they can get here and the service is bewtter and the price is way less than half.

[MGMorden]

WRONG the rich go to india for treatment that is superior to what they can get here and the service is bewtter and the price is way less than half.

The service is almost as good, but not better, and it's mostly the middle class of other countries and America that go to India - I've actually looked into it myself. 

You have to understand though that the cost is not less than half in India because of government invovlement.  The price is less than half in India because in India a dollar is worth a hell of a lot more.  When the average person can live pretty comfortably for $5000 per year then even doctors will charge a bit less.  When/if their economy improves, that will all change, and our prices will not match theirs until then.

Self insured simply won't work - because like it or not, regardless of savings or preparation, the average non-rich American CANNOT afford a serious medical emergency.  Insurance allows a rich company to play the odds rather than you.  Your monthly fee to them by definition must be less than the average monthly expenditures, so a lot of people will get back less from insurance than they put in, but what it does is make sure that if you do loose against the odds and have a serious medical issue, that the costs don't effectively destroy your life.

I've never been a big supporter of government sponsored healthcare, but eliminate of even private insurance would effectively destroy the entire medical industry (well, as far as complex surgeries go - simple family practitioner visits would be fine, but you'd better stay healthy and not have any serious accidents).

[MGMorden]

really sort of socialistic except the profits are privatized. Socialization of costs and privitization of profits.

Except that privatization of profits is the opposite of socialism.  That's kinda like saying that Obama is sort of Republican except for his political positions and beliefs. 

Private insurance IS a capitalist idea - the money is all handled by private companies corporations and the market sets the cost - insurance rates are free to rise and fall as situations and market pressures dictate. 

Eliminating that (which would actually take government interference in the form of bans and legislation against it - read: even more government control) would destroy our medical industry.  When you are in a serious car accident, or suffer a heart attack, etc, it takes a lot of man hours and a LOT of materials to perform an effective surgery and get you back on the road to recovery.  Those costs can't just disappear into thin air.  The average person cannot afford such an unexpected cost.  Can you pull $30,000 out of nowhere (note, I'm reducing that to compensate from your perceived drop in costs - I severely fractured my leg 5 years ago and all the surgeries and whatnot came up to over $70,000 - thankfully I had insurance). 

So, as more and more people were unable to pay medical bills on any surgery (can't expect only the rich guys who pay their bills to support the whole industry), the whole practice would become unprofitable.  Our doctors would gradually start to practice overseas where they could actually get paid for their work.  What we'd be left with would be the substandard guys who can't hold down a job anywhere else. 

It's not that everyone pays in and few get access - everyone has access.  Does your insurance not cover regular doctor's visits?  Do they deny you if you have an accident? The bottom line is that everyone has access, but most people will pay in a bit more than they use.  That's the whole concept of insurance (of ANY form) - most people never need it because when you roll the dice you'll probably be safe.  Insurance just ensures that if you do get dealt a bad hand, your life isn't effectively over. 

In truth, carrying a gun for protection is much the same way.  Many people carry everyday.  The vast majority will never have to use it defend themselves in their entire lifetime.  BUT, nobody wants to be that exception who ends up unarmed when confronted by an attacker.  So you lay down your money for gun/ammo, and carry it everyday even though you probably won't need it.  Are all the ones who carry being sensible for not wanting to roll the dice with their lives, or foolish for spending lots of money and time on something they'll probably never need?

[TribReady]

really sort of socialistic except the profits are privatized. Socialization of costs and privitization of profits.

Except that privatization of profits is the opposite of socialism.  That's kinda like saying that Obama is sort of Republican except for his political positions and beliefs. 

Private insurance IS a capitalist idea - the money is all handled by private companies corporations and the market sets the cost - insurance rates are free to rise and fall as situations and market pressures dictate. 

Eliminating that (which would actually take government interference in the form of bans and legislation against it - read: even more government control) would destroy our medical industry.    ............... 

It's not that everyone pays in and few get access - everyone has access.  Does your insurance not cover regular doctor's visits?  Do they deny you if you have an accident? The bottom line is that everyone has access, but most people will pay in a bit more than they use.  That's the whole concept of insurance (of ANY form) - most people never need it because when you roll the dice you'll probably be safe.  Insurance just ensures that if you do get dealt a bad hand, your life isn't effectively over. 

In truth, carrying a gun for protection is much the same way.  Many people carry everyday.  The vast majority will never have to use it defend themselves in their entire lifetime.  BUT, nobody wants to be that exception who ends up unarmed when confronted by an attacker.  So you lay down your money for gun/ammo, and carry it everyday even though you probably won't need it.  Are all the ones who carry being sensible for not wanting to roll the dice with their lives, or foolish for spending lots of money and time on something they'll probably never need?

Very well said. 
Analysis like that is what makes these forums educational and a great resource of dialogue.

[Cabin4]

Just turn back the hands of time ...would eliminate $250 billion/year in government/taxpayer sponsored research

Think about the quality of medical care available if you turned back the hands of time.  Government funded research isn't so bad - it's part of the reason why our medical infrastructure is one of the most advanced in the world. 

Now I do think that taxpayer funded research should "go back" to the taxpayers (a company patenting and selling a drug for high prices that was paid for with tax money is ridiculous) though.  All in all though, if we went to pay as you go I have a feeling the quality of our medical care would plummet regardless of your financial situation (well, the rich of our country would likely just travel elsewhere when they needed care, much like the rich of other countries often travel here now).

WRONG the rich go to india for treatment that is superior to what they can get here and the service is bewtter and the price is way less than half.

Who in the world told you this line of pure trash? India is a third world nation riddled with disease, famine and with a minimal health care system. Have you ever been to India? I have once and its a disgusting mess.

People come to the USA for the best and most advanced treatment in the world.

There no comparision whatsoever between our systems ability and theirs.

[MGMorden]

In a purely capitalistic system this collection of funds for the greater good of the few needing care and the few enjoying profits is halfway to a bonafide socialistic system except for the privatization of profit part, which is a form of quaranteed welfare for them. Therefore one legitmately might ask, "Why are we all in this paying collectively for the greater good yet there is a profit going to a select few?" 

But you mistake insurance as being for the greater good.  Insurance is an industry, like many others.  It's no more for the greater good than is Goodyear or Wal-mart.  Insurance companies provide a service that many feel has value.  People are willing to pay for that value, but it's not provided for the greater good.  It's provided in order to make money.  That's the whole driving force of capitalism, and the fact that a select few are reaping the profits is no bad thing in a capitalist society.  Whenever a person or company does business with a large number of people all that money generally funnels back to a select few.  Such as the way of commerce.

And so, from a purely capitalistic viewpoint one might say, "I'll take care of me and you take care of you, the prices will settle, and if you don't have healthcare tough luck"....at least in essence that is what many are saying to the 18 to 50 million that don't have healthcare and who they want to continue to exclude from any system.  And this is also a common argument here on the forum regarding many such economic questions such as welfare: which is what Healthcare is, a form of welfare for the sick and a form of welfare for those receiving privatized profits. So again one might just say to himself since this is a collectivized co-operative endeavor in the first place why do we need to figure in profits for a few into the equation?

Because the profits for a few is the exact point at which capitalism seperates from socialism.  The defining feature of a capitalist system is that it's run by private companies for profit.  Saying that something is socialist except for that one minor point is to effectively ignore the very distinction between the two economic systems.

   I'm just debating, I don't know for sure.  Other countries don't have the hangups we Americans have with capitalism verses socialism things, which in the end only supports the ponzi scheme of doing business here. In the end I think you will see further socialism of the scheme, more drawn into it, the gov taking a cut of the action thru taxation (McCain), and a few extremely profiting.  This will continue until the masses say, wait a minute we're tired of being farmed as cash cows and we've had enough and a big disruption occurs. Nothing concrete ever happens without some kind of large disruption.

I think you'll notice that most here aren't arguing for McCain (or Obama's) healthcare plan at all.  The main point was just that you mentioned eliminating private insurance companies.  I don't see a whole lot wrong with our current system (which both candidates want to change) - but removing private insurance would effectively mess it up; badly.  In effect, if private insurance (or employer subsidized insurance) was removed, then a whole hell of a lot of people who are AGAINST socialization of medicine would likely be for it at that point.  Afterall, as cabin4 has stated, most people are already covered right now.  I know that if I had to choose between financial ruin if I ever had a serious illness or paying a little extra in taxes to support some freeloaders I'd probably just pay the taxes at that point, but thankfully we haven't been forced to choose between those two options yet.  There is a nice middle ground, and that is private health insurance.

 BTW...do you play golf?

Not sure if that's part of your sig or a real question, but only miniature golf for me.  The real thing is a bit too boring.

[Cabin4]

CABIN.....So you never did say how you get your healthcare.  How do you get your Healthcare...what program do you access and how?

...TM7

From my employer, who is a corporation here in the Silicon Valley and I selected the PPO program. They offer a few choices including an HMO.