I have not addressed healthcare..as i already discussed this before. And, while i certainly think you are a bright guy, i highly doubt you listened to 18 years of healthcare discussion at the dinner table by 2 parents. I've been listening, arguing, examining this issue before you even were aware of it. And, i discuss it weekly with my brother. I could be wrong, but i doubt it.Originally Posted by HowardRoark
One last time, I will answer both of your questions. I will type real slow this time, so that you can comprehend.Still waiting for your answer regarding eduction.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2ZixoCCWI
Are you going to be in favor of bailing out education companies if they fail?
And, are there any huge/critical companies/banks/etc...that repubs won't bail out..and therefore influence the free market?
1. I, unlike you, am NOT omniscient. Therefore, I sometimes have to ask questions to search out answers.
2. I firmly believe that competition will ALWAYS improve a product, lower costs and give MORE choices to a consumer. Currently, there is not competition in both education and healthcare.
Here is where both you and Tex think there is no problem. The system works great. For Tex, it is because he is unaware of what is going on out there. He is insulated because he already is taken care of by the Federal Government. You think there is no problem because, well, I haven’t a clue; because you are an agitator.
Tex, there is a guy, “The Pack” who is a true Libertarian, who thinks that even group health policies are a crock of shit. He thinks that you should be able to buy into your own health risk tranche. Why should I have to pay a certain premium at work when I have good health? He argues that those with either pre-existing conditions or bad health should have to pay higher premiums. Why should I have to pay higher premiums in my employer sponsored healthcare in order to carry the people with poor health?
I disagree. It is a business model; a way to spread out risk. I am willing to get into a risk pool and pay a little more in order to hedge my health bet. I had a stroke/heart surgery at age 39. Out of the blue. Ran marathons, good shape, etc. So I understand risk.
But, it's a business model.
Sure we can limp along where we are in both education and healthcare, but I believe we can do a whole lot better.
Ty, as to your question as to who will backstop the system if it does not take care of the “least of these”, I guess I would defer to historical precedent. In fact it is more of the genesis of both healthcare AND education for the underprivileged. So, I would ask you…….who were the people who took care of and educated the poor kids prior to the Government getting their tentacles into these areas?
I know you can come up with the answer….I have confidence in you.
1. NO competition? How so? Last i saw, there are tons of private schools, parochial schools, etc.
But, could you please tell me which countries educate their kids the best and detail the competition they have there?
I don't disagree about competition..to a degree, but i think many problems in education have little to do with that...non-heterogenous culture, poverty, culture, etc.
2. Tex and I? I never said there wasn't a problem. I just won't allow you to frame your debate that way...starting from that position. Please don't ever lump me in with Tex.
There are always problems...in EVERYTHING. Competition or not. There are tons of car manufacturers, yet there are still problems with cars...and specific manufacturers.
3. Risk...i agree. Unfortunately, there will never be a true healthcare system...because people arent' willing to "pay for service."
However, if you think our system got to be this way by accident you are living in a fool's paradise.
Let's review. By around 1915 or so there was a HUGE movement for National Health Care. What stopped it?
1. WW1...anti german sentiment...u.s. gov't denounced german social infrastructure. You know, this goes with the whole anti union, anti worker, pro biz attitude. Right or wrong...this is a fact.
2. Opponents (read those who make money off healthcare) claimed it was an anti american.
3. AMA. Threat to private practice
4. Stigmatized as gov't interferece or socialized med.
Back in the early to mid 1900s the gov't was faced with a choice...help people or help biz. They, thru the influence of biz (docs, hospitals, etc) (what a surprise) chose to fund/tax break/etc. business rather than individuals. this isn't speculation, this is fact.
Where is the competion to the AMA? When the AMA began consolidating its power...it frowned on employment by hospitals and insurance companies. So, doctoring went from a trade and one that wasn't a big money profession into one that encouraged private entrepreneurship and independence from corp control.
I dont' see that as being good for healthcare.
As for hospitals..again, it is far from the free market. Hospital plans and Blue cross were started because of economic instability due to the great depression.
Around 1930 or so..the first insurance plan was started and become the model for Blue Cross. And, the AHA LOVED IT. Supported group hospital plans and coordinated them into a national network.
So, if you are truly for the free market..then should hospitals compete? Should we let them fail? And, how do feel knowing that hospitals and the AHA were expressly in favor of group coverage?
As for insurance...again, this is something, like pensions, that the right likes to forget how they started. Private insurance (employer) was started as a way to help EMPLOYERS because they didnt' want to give RAISES. Ooops.
Congress made this bennie non taxable..so, it was a win..equivalent of more salary without being taxed.
Now, we do have the best system when it comes to cutting edge services and drugs, etc. But, we are far from a great system when it comes to basic services, etc.
4. The past. Healthcare.Well, you always had some relief orgs...but, many slipped thru the cracks.
but, you can't look at medicine without noting the change. Preindustrial it was more a trade and less science. My god, until around 1880, docs were a 2 year degree and apprenticeship with another doc.
It wasn't prestigious, didn't require rigorous study, clinical practice, boards, res, etc. ANYONE UNTRAINED OR TRAINED COULD PRACTICE.
the clergy often combined med and religious services and many docs had a second job.
There were few hospitals..they were only in cities.
So, who really took care of the poor. Um, there were ALMSHOUSES (poor house)...and WAIT FOR It....WAIT FOR IT...who paid for them....GOVERNMENT. Ooops.
As for education...some guy named jefferson wanted public education. But, till around 1840..education was for the weatlhy..so, the poor didnt' get educated...they WORKED.
Why education for all? Common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. By around 1920 or so, all states had adopted pub education for elementary school. Except the caths opposed it..so, they created their own schools.
Reply With Quote