While more money will result in more innovation the same can be said of everything else. The funds from any government program could be used for scientific purposes. Welfare, food stamps, programs for the disabled.....just as there is a minimum of assistance we offer in other areas there should be a minimum of medical care. The problem is some people don't want that. They don't want medical care to be supported by tax dollars similar to welfare and other social programs.
While there are those who are opposed absolutely to tax dollars being spent on healthcare assistance (What the F do they think is already happening?!?) MOST peoples' concern is a combination of how much is to be spent on health care assistance, and HOW it is to be spent. An additional concern is how any significant increase in public monies spent in health care assistance will affect that portion (which, despite the rhetoric, is actually the vast majority) of our health care that works as it is.
As for a finite resource that argument reminds me of the one about housing. How can we possibly house everyone? How can we have enough apartments in certain cities? However, the housing boom showed us just how fast housing can be built.
Doctors are not houses. You cannot simply make more doctors as needed. The professional requirements, from intelligence to dedication to desire, are not found easily.
Since the financial meltdown CC companies do closely scrutinize what you buy. If you go from purchasing $1000 suits to buying coveralls and steel toed boots you can bet your CC company is going to check on your employment. If your European vacations are now weekends at the lake something is amiss. Also, while CC do not require one to put up collateral you can be sure they are well aware of your collateral. Your job. Your home. They're watching.
And in some cases they may reduce the client's credit limit. But they still do not ask, in advance, what their credit is going to be spent on. In short, whether a large credit limit or a smaller one, whether a credit line is increased due to activity, or decreased due to activity, money is still being loaned - in copious amounts despite the flagging economy - without requiring knowledge of how the money is to be spent.
Are you sure they don't want to know the reason for the debt? I find that hard to believe. It is one thing to insure (bet on) an individual who is in debt from having purchased a home compared to one who has nothing to show for it.
While mortgage insurance and auto loan insurance are by far the most common types of credit insurance, they is also required. You cannot get a home loan or car loan without also buying credit insurance. Credit insurance on revolving credit is less common, but is also voluntary. And no, they do not inquire how people intend to use their credit cards. (How can they, when most people do not know from day to day how or where they will use their credit cards?)
Universal medical is not full blown socialism.
Nobody said it is. However, it IS a step in that direction.
Some argue that if government runs medical services they will implement some form of control over people to try to keep costs down. I can not think of one country which has universal medical that refuses to treat people with smoke related illnesses and surely that would be considered reasonable after all the information we have about the hazards of smoking.
Then explain the proposals already on the table to tax foods considered unhealthy.
I think the problem is people relate a government run health care system to an insurance system. We hear about getting permission from insurance companies, what's covered and not covered in the policy, etc. Government run universal medical is not like that. There is one policy for everyone. There is no need to check individual coverage.
The idea that people must "get permission" from their insurance companies is a (deliberate?) misrepresentation of the facts. An insurance company will state whether a procedure, medication or other treatment is covered. But they have no say whether the patient can receive the treatment. They only say whether the insurance will pay for part or all of it.
Because there is one policy for everyone more procedures are included in the coverage than any individual policy. Also, and this is what's most important, the government does not decide what procedures individuals require which is the way HMOs operate.
If a procedure is covered and a doctor and patient decide on that procedure the government pays the bill. The government is not involved in determining the treatment so this idea of socialism is a non-starter.
Again, not exactly a complete or accurate portrayal of government systems vs. private ones. Medicare - the current government health insurance program, also has its limits on what will or will not be covered. No, they do not interfere with the decisions between a doctor and the patient, but they DO say, like any other insurance coverage, whether the procedure is covered or not. Of course, if a person has no hope of affording a needed treatment on their own, and it is not covered, then it may seem (to some) that the refusal to cover a treatment is "interfering" with the decision. However, since NO insurance, even the rose-colored, drug-induced utopian dreams of the die hard socialists will cover ANYTHING. As such, either the limits of even the best of insurance is going to, at some time, interfere with doctor/patient decisions, OR (the truth) denial of coverage for a treatment cannot be, realistically, called interference.
In that scope, the opponents are lying. Those against a public option are lying by implying the government will interfere with doctor-patient decisions, when the truth is a public option, like any insurance (including Medicare/Medicaid) will simply not cover certain treatments and/or treatments of certain types of conditions. The proponents deny this - and are accurate in doing so. However, the truth is that a public option will also deny coverage for certain things.
As to what is or is not covered, that factor is determined by the type of coverage one has. Simply put, the more expensive the policy, the more things will be covered by that policy. A cheap policy will not cover much or for very long. A very good policy will cover much more. A very expensive policy can be had that will cover almost anything - including optional treatments. (The fact that those policies are usually so expensive it would be cheaper to pay for the optional treatments is beside the point - they can be had.)
The claim that a public option would provide better coverage presupposes that the public option can afford that level of coverage for everyone under it. The truth is most public option proposals to date are not significantly better than a medium level private policy of today.
But it gets better (or worse, depending on what drugs you're on). The public option is only a small part. On top of it all comes a huge package of new regulations on the insurance industry, requiring coverage for preexisting conditions being one huge factor. What do these idiots, who are trying to claim they want to bring down costs, think requiring ALL policies to cover certain conditions that they do not currently cover? Seems they have forgotten that if you increase the costs of a company, that company will either have to raise their fees, or go bankrupt. (There are those who say that is one, unstated, purpose of these new regulations.)
But that also means a public option, if they choose to cover treatments under the same conditions, the costs of the public option will ALSO be much higher than they are admitting to. Insurance companies (contrary to the rhetoric of undeserved profits) do not run at a significantly higher profit margin or ROI than do other companies. As a genre, they run slightly above oil companies and slightly below major retail outlets in profit margin, and below both when it comes to ROI. But that is not relevant anyway, since the country's largest health insurance provider - Blue Cross/Blue Shield - is NON-PROFIT. That means the federal public option plan will, by necessity, be run at approximately the same rates as BCBS.
So I ask: HOW is this great plan, which increases coverage, requires coverage of preexisting conditions, yet is going SOMEHOW to be LOWER than the rates of a non-profit organization? Either the originators are the most self deluded idiots in history, or they are the biggest bunch of liars ever to reach high office.
