Government vs. Capitalist Health Care Systems

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As our beloved apple continues to bust a gut defending the failed idea of nationalized health care, it occurs to me, there has been something lost in the dialogue. While we all mull over how, or IF, we can get rid of aspects of Obamacare, on the basis of what it's doing to the economy alone, we miss the opportunity to examine the two distinctly different mindsets, when it comes to health care. Should we have a nationalized system controlled by the government, or should it remain in the hands of the capitalists? Now, there are certain nationalized standards for any medical practice, and government does play a role in regulation, but is government better suited for the task of administering our health care, and do we want them to?

We have to start by examining what governments are good at doing, and can do well. They are good at ensuring everyone has equal and adequate necessity. Like if FEMA is in New Orleans during Katrina, they can ensure that every person has a blanket and toothbrush, and know where to go to claim their MRE... that's where government is really great... then they turn them out into the Superdome with no security or power, with their government issued blanket and toothbrush. Now, the capitalist system is much different, we'll get to that later, but for now, I want you to recall the last time you went to the courthouse or dealt with the government. They are really good at making sure you have met the criteria for appropriation, and qualify under the standards mandated. They are exceptional at making sure you have properly accounted for all the hoop jumping and red tape compliance, because this is what they do! Making sure you get your appropriated sum of health care, pursuant to legislation enacted, just as soon as your qualifications have been reviewed and approved... THAT is how the government is GREAT at operating things! The Army... another great example of what government can do well... Organize them, fill out paperwork, count their beans... they all get the same clothes and army-issue supplies... the government is outstanding at this! The Tag Office... another brilliant example of the government at its best! Here, they have perfected the art of what they do, to not only inconvenience us with the burden of taxation on the car we own, but to also inflict sacrifice and mental anguish upon us, by finding the most inefficient way to kill an entire weekday. But that's the government, they don't ever give you what you really need, just whatever they believe is good for you, and it doesn't matter if you don't like it, they are the government.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works in a completely different way. With a capitalist, the consumer is of paramount importance. All that matters to a capitalist is consumer demand. If the consumer wants, the capitalist makes it so. If the consumer has a need, the capitalist is there to fill it. Capitalist use consumers as an opportunity to make profits, and consumers have the things they want and desire. In this country, we have always been proud to lead the world in capitalism, we have relied on it to raise our nation to greatness, as a matter of fact. In many ways, capitalism is the cornerstone of freedom and the entire foundation of our nation. It is through capitalism and and a capitalist health care system, our doctors are the greatest mankind has ever witnessed. Fascinating scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, accomplishments you could have only dreamed about 50 years ago. People come from near and far to seek American medical care. Is it because it was government-operated?

What it ultimately all comes down to, is what kind of health care system do you want, if it's you under the knife, on that operating table? As for me, I want the capitalist... the doctor who is committed to giving me satisfactory results and meeting or exceeding my demands. I don't want the doctor who is there to hand me my blanket and toothbrush, and perform the appropriated procedure pursuant to Chapter VII Section 3, as long as I have met the predetermined criteria qualifications and jumped through the right governmental hoops. When I am hopefully in recovery, I prefer the capitalist nurse, who is there to see that my needs are met and I am happy with my experience, or as happy and comfortable as can be under the circumstances. I don't want the government nurse.

When I am finally out of the hospital, and I get my bill.... I want to call the capitalist and speak to a customer service representative who will gladly take the time to explain how my jello baths were not covered by my insurance, and I did sign for those. I don't want to call the toll-free government hotline. If I don't get to feeling better, and I go have an x-ray to find, a pair of hemostats was accidentally left inside my gut... I want to hire a lawyer and sue the capitalist, not the government. My chances of being adequately compensated, are far greater with the capitalist, as the government can claim sort of a 'diplomatic immunity'. And if you aren't happy with whatever compensation the government offers, they can always send the guys in dark sunglasses. No sir, I want the fat pig greedy capitalist who has all my money!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie.....you can be such a partisan hack. Hell nearly 75% of our nations health care system is all read owned by the public and has been for a very, very long time. So guess what mother fucker? LOL

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie.....you can be such a partisan hack. Hell nearly 75% of our nations health care system is all read owned by the public and has been for a very, very long time. So guess what mother fucker? LOL

Dixie: Capitalist Hack! ...I like it! :lol:

 

[blackascoal]

Would cradle-to-grave free health care and education be in the best interests of the American people?

 

[Nemo]

I find it interesting that the very people that advocated "privatization" of Social Security are the ones vehemently against universal healthcare. We are all paying for healthcare (both directly and indirectly) anyway; and we’re all paying more for it every time some uninsured person goes to the emergency room. So why not get what we are all paying for? And, more to the point, why not get our money’s worth?

Most Americans could not afford a major medical expense, even with health insurance - they will be bankrupt; and those unfortunate to need long-term medical treatment will end up on the street. If universal healthcare is not a right, then it certainly should be. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? The greatest nation in the world should be able to afford the very best healthcare for all of its citizens.

 

[Granule]

Would cradle-to-grave free health care and education be in the best interests of the American people?

I suppose if you're a socialist it may be.

 

[blackascoal]

I suppose if you're a socialist it may be.

Being a socialist has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.

It would be undeniably in America's best interest to offer free education and healthcare to all its citizens.

Kinda' turns all the noise about government into the rantings of parrots.

 

[apple0154]

As our beloved apple continues to bust a gut defending the failed idea of nationalized health care, it occurs to me, there has been something lost in the dialogue. While we all mull over how, or IF, we can get rid of aspects of Obamacare, on the basis of what it's doing to the economy alone, we miss the opportunity to examine the two distinctly different mindsets, when it comes to health care. Should we have a nationalized system controlled by the government, or should it remain in the hands of the capitalists? Now, there are certain nationalized standards for any medical practice, and government does play a role in regulation, but is government better suited for the task of administering our health care, and do we want them to?

First, let me thank you for thinking of me.

We have to start by examining what governments are good at doing, and can do well. They are good at ensuring everyone has equal and adequate necessity. Like if FEMA is in New Orleans during Katrina, they can ensure that every person has a blanket and toothbrush, and know where to go to claim their MRE... that's where government is really great... then they turn them out into the Superdome with no security or power, with their government issued blanket and toothbrush. Now, the capitalist system is much different, we'll get to that later, but for now, I want you to recall the last time you went to the courthouse or dealt with the government. They are really good at making sure you have met the criteria for appropriation, and qualify under the standards mandated. They are exceptional at making sure you have properly accounted for all the hoop jumping and red tape compliance, because this is what they do! Making sure you get your appropriated sum of health care, pursuant to legislation enacted, just as soon as your qualifications have been reviewed and approved... THAT is how the government is GREAT at operating things! The Army... another great example of what government can do well... Organize them, fill out paperwork, count their beans... they all get the same clothes and army-issue supplies... the government is outstanding at this! The Tag Office... another brilliant example of the government at its best! Here, they have perfected the art of what they do, to not only inconvenience us with the burden of taxation on the car we own, but to also inflict sacrifice and mental anguish upon us, by finding the most inefficient way to kill an entire weekday. But that's the government, they don't ever give you what you really need, just whatever they believe is good for you, and it doesn't matter if you don't like it, they are the government.

That is a fine example of someone who knows absolutely nothing about government medical. More on this later.

Capitalism, on the other hand, works in a completely different way. With a capitalist, the consumer is of paramount importance. All that matters to a capitalist is consumer demand. If the consumer wants, the capitalist makes it so. If the consumer has a need, the capitalist is there to fill it. Capitalist use consumers as an opportunity to make profits, and consumers have the things they want and desire. In this country, we have always been proud to lead the world in capitalism, we have relied on it to raise our nation to greatness, as a matter of fact. In many ways, capitalism is the cornerstone of freedom and the entire foundation of our nation. It is through capitalism and and a capitalist health care system, our doctors are the greatest mankind has ever witnessed. Fascinating scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, accomplishments you could have only dreamed about 50 years ago. People come from near and far to seek American medical care. Is it because it was government-operated?

While US medical is great statistics ALWAYS show the life span of the average American is equal to or lower than countries with government health care. The fact is there are a number of countries where longevity is greater. Is not one compelled to ask why?

Regarding Capitalism and consumer demand what better position to be in than offering a dying person hope? As you correctly stated, “All that matters to a capitalist is consumer demand.” Many dying persons will try anything and when I say anything, I mean anything, to prolong their life. Frequently, celebrities will travel to Mexico or certain Caribbean countries and try all sorts of things. Anyone for bat wings and jellied frog?

What it ultimately all comes down to, is what kind of health care system do you want, if it's you under the knife, on that operating table? As for me, I want the capitalist... the doctor who is committed to giving me satisfactory results and meeting or exceeding my demands. I don't want the doctor who is there to hand me my blanket and toothbrush, and perform the appropriated procedure pursuant to Chapter VII Section 3, as long as I have met the predetermined criteria qualifications and jumped through the right governmental hoops. When I am hopefully in recovery, I prefer the capitalist nurse, who is there to see that my needs are met and I am happy with my experience, or as happy and comfortable as can be under the circumstances. I don't want the government nurse.

When I am finally out of the hospital, and I get my bill.... I want to call the capitalist and speak to a customer service representative who will gladly take the time to explain how my jello baths were not covered by my insurance, and I did sign for those. I don't want to call the toll-free government hotline. If I don't get to feeling better, and I go have an x-ray to find, a pair of hemostats was accidentally left inside my gut... I want to hire a lawyer and sue the capitalist, not the government. My chances of being adequately compensated, are far greater with the capitalist, as the government can claim sort of a 'diplomatic immunity'. And if you aren't happy with whatever compensation the government offers, they can always send the guys in dark sunglasses. No sir, I want the fat pig greedy capitalist who has all my money!

That’s great if you have the money to sue. You see, you’re not suing the doctor, per se. You’re suing his insurance company and they have a LOT more money and resources than you do. They have specialists with alphabet soup after their name and they can convince a jury that a table is a chair. You couldn’t afford to say “hello” to those folks let alone have one testify for you and the “country doctor” who would be willing will be ripped apart on the stand. Oh, there may be cases where someone wins but they’re few and far between.

Back to government health care. Each country has a different plan. For example, in France the government doctor makes house calls. HA! Try to get a doctor in the US to make a house call if you’re not Michael Jackson.

In Canada everyone has a health card. While Provinces have slight differences in Quebec one’s health card is like a credit card. Same size. Used the same way except the government pays the bill.

So, the first thing is one decides to visit a doctor. They open the phone book or Google general practitioner (GP) or simply walk down the street a few blocks and come across a clinic. No appointment necessary. It’s like going to a hospital emergency room where one can go, also.

The Receptionist asks what the problem is and takes your card. She runs it through a machine and the information is transferred to an application form. She hands you back your card along with the form which you fill out, give back, then wait. Depending on the number of people and the seriousness of your problem the wait varies. You can be taken immediately or wait two hours if your complaint is nothing more than a sore throat.

The doctor examines you and evaluates the situation. If it was for a sore throat he may prescribe some antibiotics or a sterile gargle and you’re on your way. No bill. No cash. You’re done.

If he thinks the problem is serious such as possible tonsil removal he will give you the phone number of a doctor. (Obviously, if you’re gasping for air due to the swelling blocking your throat you’re off to the hospital.) You go home and phone for an appointment. No bill. No cash.

Depending on the schedule of the surgeon an appointment is set up. He examines you and sets an operation date. If, for whatever reason, you don’t like the doctor you can return to the clinic you visited and request another doctor.

Operation day arrives and off you go to the hospital. Don’t forget your health card! You hand in your card and if you’ve ever been at that hospital before they have all the info. They run it through the machine, give it back to you and the next thing you know you’re drifting off to sleep.

A while later you wake up feeling like someone shoved a hot poker down your throat. The nurse drops by, injects a little something in your IV and all of a sudden you forget about your throat and notice how good the nurse looks.

Shortly thereafter, you’re on your way home with a few pills and a prescription. No bill. No cash. And when you get to the drug store the prescription costs you 20% because the government is paying the other 80%.

And that’s it. That’s government medical.

Years ago, I spent 3 months in the hospital. I have no idea how much it cost. I never paid a penny. I never saw a bill.

That’s how government medical works.

Caveat: I never had any “tools” left in my body and never knew anyone who did. Should that happen I’d be more interested in getting them out as opposed to thinking of it as winning a lottery but I suppose a diehard Capitalist may think differently.

 

[Damocles]

Would cradle-to-grave free health care and education be in the best interests of the American people?

I do not believe so. Nothing curbs freedom like the government holding responsibility towards your care. Each decision you make then comes under their umbrella. I can see future arguments where they say that being fat costs more therefore you cannot eat "such and such" (in some places they already have some laws going in that direction)...

When government is powerful enough to provide your every need, it is powerful enough to take your freedoms (a word I often find interchangeable with responsibilities).

I cannot see a way that such incredible government power over one of the most important aspects of our lives does not end poorly for individual freedom.

 

[Damocles]

I find it interesting that the very people that advocated "privatization" of Social Security are the ones vehemently against universal healthcare. We are all paying for healthcare (both directly and indirectly) anyway; and we’re all paying more for it every time some uninsured person goes to the emergency room. So why not get what we are all paying for? And, more to the point, why not get our money’s worth?

Most Americans could not afford a major medical expense, even with health insurance - they will be bankrupt; and those unfortunate to need long-term medical treatment will end up on the street. If universal healthcare is not a right, then it certainly should be. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? The greatest nation in the world should be able to afford the very best healthcare for all of its citizens.

They advocate taking away some government control of something so they should advocate more government control over another?

You make no sense at all in this post.

 

[Rune]

I do not believe so. Nothing curbs freedom like the government holding responsibility towards your care. Each decision you make then comes under their umbrella. I can see future arguments where they say that being fat costs more therefore you cannot eat "such and such" (in some places they already have some laws going in that direction)...

When government is powerful enough to provide your every need, it is powerful enough to take your freedoms (a word I often find interchangeable with responsibilities).

I cannot see a way that such incredible government power over one of the most important aspects of our lives does not end poorly for individual freedom.

Yep, all those people who needed healthcare but didn't have access to it were free...to die.

 

[Damocles]

Yep, all those people who needed healthcare but didn't have access to it were free...to die.

Or were able to obtain it through means other than the government. Such as Shriner's hospitals, etc.

I'd prefer to find a solution other than government. I've not been shy of that opinion from the beginning. I also believe that the US is in a unique position to be able to do that, to find the best means to provide the most care without giving up everything to a government solution.

 

[Rune]

Or were able to obtain it through means other than the government. Such as Shriner's hospitals, etc.

I'd prefer to find a solution other than government. I've not been shy of that opinion from the beginning. I also believe that the US is in a unique position to be able to do that, to find the best means to provide the most care without giving up everything to a government solution.

Except, they didn't, and they are dead now. Why are facts irrelevant to you?

 

[Damocles]

Except, they didn't, and they are dead now. Why are facts irrelevant to you?

You gave no facts, you presented a hypothetical I answered with the same.

I understand that the reality is some risk comes with freedom. I prefer that risk to the risk to freedom that comes with the solution of conception to grave government control (read "care") of my life.

You prefer to risk my freedom for security, I prefer to fight for your freedom even when you don't understand its value.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Except, they didn't, and they are dead now. Why are facts irrelevant to you?

Here's a fact you don't seem to want to acknowledge: There is no law we can pass to force people to obtain proper health care when needed. Until we can do that, there is no way to say that universal health care would have "saved" this life or that. We just do not know this information.

Another fact you seem to want to ignore, is the fact that we have had indigent care laws for two decades or more in every state. This means, anyone who is sick can obtain medical treatment, and it's against the law for the medical facility to refuse treatment, on the basis of inability to pay. So basically, if someone gets sick and dies, it is not because they lacked health care insurance coverage, it is because they refused to utilize the laws and system we already have in place.

 

[apple0154]

I do not believe so. Nothing curbs freedom like the government holding responsibility towards your care. Each decision you make then comes under their umbrella. I can see future arguments where they say that being fat costs more therefore you cannot eat "such and such" (in some places they already have some laws going in that direction)...

When government is powerful enough to provide your every need, it is powerful enough to take your freedoms (a word I often find interchangeable with responsibilities).

I cannot see a way that such incredible government power over one of the most important aspects of our lives does not end poorly for individual freedom.

Dozen of countries over 50 years and some even boasting a greater longevity for it's citizens.

You have to give us something to work with, Damo.

 

[apple0154]

Here's a fact you don't seem to want to acknowledge: There is no law we can pass to force people to obtain proper health care when needed. Until we can do that, there is no way to say that universal health care would have "saved" this life or that. We just do not know this information.

Another fact you seem to want to ignore, is the fact that we have had indigent care laws for two decades or more in every state. This means, anyone who is sick can obtain medical treatment, and it's against the law for the medical facility to refuse treatment, on the basis of inability to pay. So basically, if someone gets sick and dies, it is not because they lacked health care insurance coverage, it is because they refused to utilize the laws and system we already have in place.

No, it's quite likely some folks didn't want to spend all their money on health care, end up dying, then having their spouse and children on the street. Tell me, would you bankrupt your family on the off chance you may beat cancer that kills 7 out of 8 people? 3 out of 4? How about a 50-50 chance?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dozen of countries over 50 years and some even boasting a greater longevity for it's citizens.

You have to give us something to work with, Damo.

Other countries don't lead the world in Capitalism. Other countries don't have a US Constitution. Longevity indigenous to various people, often has little to do with available health care, you have never made this point. After Alaska became a state, and we started examining the Inuit people (Eskimos), we discovered they had amazing longevity. This is thought to be a result of relative low-fat diets of mostly fish, and living in an environment inhospitable to bacteria, along with other lifestyle habits exclusive to their people. It's not because Alaska was dotted with free health care facilities, quite the contrary. If health care availability resulted in assured longevity, we would expect to see longevity in and around major metro areas to be much higher than it's rural counterparts, but that isn't the case. People in the city tend to have shorter longevity, in spite of an abundance of health care available. More health care available, simply doesn't mean you will live longer.

Now, in a place where Capitalism doesn't flourish, and it is difficult to operate as a true Capitalist, they have found the best solution to health care, is to have the government provide it. This is acceptable for them, because they don't know how to make Capitalism work like we do. It works out okay because they don't have large populations, nor do they have millions of illegal aliens crossing their borders. Most importantly, they don't have a US Constitution like ours, so they don't have to worry with ensuring Constitutional rights. If "Government Medical," as you like to call it, decides that your surgery is not important because you are not as productive as a citizen, they can make the decision that you don't deserve it. If there is one kidney left in the kidney bank, it goes to whoever the state feels is most deserving, and you don't really have any recourse. Other countries don't have a Supreme Court to uphold their right to equal protection under the law, we do. So the things that might happen to work in other countries, has absolutely nothing to do with us, and how things work here.

In just two paragraphs, I have completely destroyed every argument you have presented for "Government Medical."

I predict you will ignore this, and continue to repeat these same points over and over again.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, it's quite likely some folks didn't want to spend all their money on health care, end up dying, then having their spouse and children on the street. Tell me, would you bankrupt your family on the off chance you may beat cancer that kills 7 out of 8 people? 3 out of 4? How about a 50-50 chance?

So then, the reason these people died, was NOT because they lacked appropriate care or availability to it, but rather, because they valued money more than living.

What part of Nationalized Health Care ensures that everyone will value their health more than money, or inconvenience, for that matter? I mean, I can go get a blood pressure test for free right now, I don't need government to provide it, the capitalists make it available to me free of charge, in order to encourage me to buy other products. Now, if I do decide, of my own free will, to go and have the blood pressure checked, and it is high... what part of Nationalized Health Care ensures I will immediately go to the doctor and get medication? And what part ensures I will take the pills and follow the advice of the physician? If you don't have a part in there to cover this, you can't claim it will do what you say.

 

[Damocles]

Dozen of countries over 50 years and some even boasting a greater longevity for it's citizens.

You have to give us something to work with, Damo.

Longer life does not equate to greater freedom. It is a poor figure especially when it is figured differently (it ignores early premature births that in other nations are simply untreated while the US, admirably IMO, tries to save them, those deaths are figured into the US average to its detriment, well that and the obesity issue.)

Your goal is maximum care, mine is maximum freedom. I believe in a balance and do not believe that we should ignore the cost of freedom when figuring the cost of conception to grave care.