I have to say, the statements from Obama regarding health insurance pretty much confirmed that he is a socialist.
The question asked:
Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
McCain: I think it's a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that.
Obama: Well, why don't -- why don't -- let's talk about this, Tom, because there was just a lot of stuff out there.
Brokaw: Privilege, right or responsibility. Let's start with that.
Obama: Well, I think it should be a right for every American.
By saying it's a right, basically says that it will be a government mandate and that in one way or another, you will be forced to have health insurance. What a joke?
It doesn't matter to me what people call it. If a program lowers the % GDP that is due to healthcare costs and raises life expextancy as well certain other stats such as cancer survival rate, etc. then it is just smart economically.
And unfortunately that often gets translated into unconstitutional actions by the government. It does go back to the old cliche - Act in haste, repent in leisure.
Wrong kind of insurance.
Let's put aside the fundamental difference right now about "Rights" versus "benefits".
Let's look at the numbers. But wait, we have no numbers! Do we have precedence? yes, we can look at another government run virtual monopoly versus the meager free enterprise alternatives (education). What can we see from that? Government's pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $7,000 per student to educate them. Private schools, about half that. So what makes everyone think that the cost is going to go down? (Initially it probably will, but what government program has ever come in at or under stated costs?). And standards to measure? Seems that Private education excels in that area too.
Next cancer survival rate and life expectancy. What empirical data does anyone have that shows these would improve? And before we trot out other countries, we do have to factor out the differences, do we not? So comparing the USA to Sweden, we first must take into account the immigrant population (much of them illegal in the US) that comes into the USA with pre-existing health care issues, and no prior health care. Then there are factors like accidental (this includes intentional as in murder) deaths, coverage area (the US is a big place with some places not served well), and diversity of population. I have looked, but have yet to find any studies that take these factors into account. So we have to compare apples to apples, and yet we have no apples yet.
So lets say - for good intentions - it comes about and the government nationalizes 17% of the economy (sounds like Venezuela - BTW how is their health care, life expectancy and cancer survival rates?). And your wish list of reasons does not come to pass (a possibility and since unknown, lets just suppose). Instead, costs go up, and quality goes down (as has been shown to happen in other nationalized countries of health care) - it is government after all - when has a government program not done this. What do we do then?
Has any failed government program ever been eliminated?
Once you get on the back of the fox, you have to hope you make it to the other side of the river before you wind up in his stomach, as there is no place to get off before the end of the journey - one way or another.
Yes, this is true but what if it isn't a fox and is instead a turtle! And not just any turtle, but a cool laid back pot smoking hippie turtle. And he just lets you chill on his shell while he's crossing over! HA, beat that one!
AIG doesn't operate any healthcare insurance companies except for one workers compensation insurance unit. They provide risk-management & business insurance products to healthcare insurance companies, but that is a relatively small portion of their business.
It doesn't really. They just stop counting some things as healthcare expenditures. Voila, lower %GDP. And the whole argument that there is a 'correct' %GDP to spend on healthcare, that the economy is a zero-sum game, is bogus.
Hey! Great Idea! Then they can raise the retirement age to 80. That will solve the social security problem.
I'm not sure what needs to be done with the Healthcare system but I loathe the thought of the government getting involved.
What I'm most upset about is what many are upset about these days..that is, the big Execs walking away with millions of dollars.
My husband did a tax return on just such an executive yesterday. He's a medical insurance executive. His tax return was 1.6 million and that was just a portion of what this guy has. My husband said there is just no way anyone is worth that kind of money. It's ridiculous. He said he believes some doctors are worth big bucks but not these middle men who are dealing between the people and the doctors. We have one doctor friend who is an Oral Surgeon. There's not too many that do what he does. He makes about a million a year. He works his butt off and spent years and years of schooling and had school bills like you wouldn't believe. Now he not only has to pay about a third of his income to the government but malpractice insurance (for the big execs) is outrageous.
This is why we spend so much money on healthcare.....so the insurance executives can have their fancy cars and big mansions. The government getting getting involved will just transfer the money from the insurance executives to the political executives. Our money is going between the lawyers and the insurance big whigs and we're the big losers in the healthcare game.
Sorry Aesop, you got me with that one!
Certainly...Get right to the core of the issue....If the cost of health care per capaita is not lowered than the US fails.
And that is why I listen to economists as opposed to you.
Maybe you should look at what is being done in other countries. I don't agree with either presidential candidates plans. What I do agree with is that the attitute of the country needs to change because the system needs to change.
They certainly do.
Totally seperate issue.
Please provide the names.
Eh, no. Wrong again
Too bad - they are saying the same things. As I am an economist by education.
They do some through the AIG namebrand, subsidiaries,reinsurance, and they underwrite other insurance companies as well as have controlling shares in hmo's they spun off in prior years. The ties this company has not only to the healthcare industry but also the government and politicians are phenomenal.
Im talking real economists who are capable of separating reality from politics.
Which HMO's did AIG 'spin off'? I don't know of any.
Thank you. I am.
Yes...no? Hmm...
~Zoo
Most of what I've looked at as far as HMO's is what was done within Anthem since it was created by AIG.
Anthem Blue Cross? I think there was less operational involvement there than you think, but I'm open to enlightenment. And I believe, if AIG had any involvement with Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, it was by way of acquisition, not creation. Even with Anthem, AIG hardly controlled the health insurance industry.
I think health care should be "socialized." There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism. It was given a bad name when everyone was afraid of communists throughout the cold war.
Are you paranoid of borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor because they'll think you're a communist for doing so? Are you paranoid of going to the library? Of calling the fire department when you've got a kitchen fire? Of calling the police when a crime has been committed? These are all forms of "socialism." Our own U.S. Military is largely operated on "socialist" practices.
Just like we all deserve access to the library, like we all depend on firemen & policemen, we all ought to be able to depend on health care without going completely broke. I think health care should be "socialized."
no I'm afraid that the government is going to come in and take my sugar away from me and give it to my neighbor who they deem is more needy than I.
The framers of the constitution did not want socialism for this country. That's not at all what they intended nor how they set us up. They wanted less government intrusion not more. In fact Thomas Jefferson said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."
Another qoute from Thomas Jefferson. "I hope we shall crush...In it's birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our countries."
An Economic theory cannot be the same in the rural 18th century and the Corporation dominated 21st century. Your fear is justified, but your alternatives are outdated and unworkable.
AIG created anthem which then aquired Blue Cross/Blue Shield and turned them into for profit businesses. It then merged with Wellpoint taking on the wellpoint name.
OK, Smoothseas - appreciate the details, even if I did have to squeeze them out of you.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
