doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

The problem with a Government Controlled Health Care ( even more controlled than today) is that our history is that Guberment run programs that once you start you are stuck with them.

We need to see a few states do it right, that will a real test of the merits.

Jack in the Government Plan - how is access to services controlled (unrestricted demand) ?

Jack, the problem is that old devil in the details. You've said yourself that you don't like either Hillarycare or Obamacare. So where's the plan being proposed for the United States that you support? It ain't out there! Petition your Governor Pawlenty (who's being touted as a potential Republican VP candidate) to get behind one and tell him what you want. But it seems somewhat contradictory of you to beat the drum for universal health care, while at the same time opposing the plans being put forward by the current candidates. What you're saying there, obviously, is that there are right ways and wrong ways to do universal health care. Therefore, the concept isn't as universally good as you're touting it to be . . . or, once again, the devil is in the details.

They vary greatly from country to country. Wikipedia has an interesting comparison between plans in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. Spend some time studying, and you'll find answers to a lot of your questions. Unfortunately, most Americans go no further than hearsay and talk radio to shape their opinions.





Your first point is answered by your second. The WHO caveat is appropriate because cause of death can be subjective to some degree. But fact of death is not, so infant mortality and life expectancy data is pretty accurate.

First of all, I have never touted universal health care as "universally good." I have said that UHC plans in OECD states have lower per capita costs and better outcomes than America's private insurance industry-managed system. And I have backed that claim with facts.

My opposition to HillaryCare and ObamaCare is no contradiction whatsoever. Both proposals are based on private insurance industry management - which is keeping the fox in control of the hen house. As I pointed out before, even CAHI, a front for the private insurance industry, admits that government-run health plans cost less to administer.

Again, I have provided facts in detail, and cited my sources. Can any of the UHC naysayers do the same?

Is there a hybrid plan that would allow people to keep their current plan if they so choose, and fill in the gaps for the uninsured? Perhaps that would alleviate concerns among the skeptics about choice. In my own state of WA., there is a basic plan available for artists such as myself, but I make too much. Heck, as a veteran (but non-combat), if I could just have access to a VA hospital I would be fine with that.

Providing health care to US citizens is NOT a proper and legitimate function of the federal government. Federal interference is one of the reasons health care costs are so high. There has been talk in a few states of starting their own socialized health care plan. I think a state run plan would be a good test case for viability. At least an individual in a state with such a plan could opt out by voting with his feet.

Does Michael Moore post here? Feels like his type of facts.
bill

Peter, What source of information tells you that: "Federal interference is one of the reasons health care costs are so high."? I have never seen the slightest bit of data to support that supposition.
(I suppose you also think those nasty laws which allow doctors and hospitals to be sued are also a "reason health care costs are so high?)

Jake

Jake, if you will read my post a page or two back you can see some of the factors I think have increased the cost of health care including compliance cost. I also don't believe the federal government can efficiently run any comprehensive program. It is a Fact that as the size of an operation increases efficiency decreases. In the private sector this would equate to a small business working at a much higher profit margin than large business. In my business I frequently see profit figures in the 40% range while GE will be doing good to hit 4%. In term of government we are not looking at profit figures but cost figures. The larger the program the less efficiently it can be run equating to higher cost of operation. The only other mandatory social program our federal government has running on the scale of universal health is social security. Do you consider this a well run and successful program? I do not. The next time you have an opportunity ask a retired railroad worker about his benefeits and see if he wishes the railroads had not opted out of social security.
My viewpoints also are coming from the perspective that the constitution was a document written to secure the rights of the individual and the states and limit the power of the federal government. I guess this FACT has also been forgotten.