inGame footage of various games. In the future I hope to add reviews. ^_^

While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.

From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.

But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.

So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?

(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)

 

Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):

  • The Believe that health care is a right, not a privilege (file under altruism).
  • Desire for more government control.
  • An excuse to raise taxes (no one wants to pay more taxes without a good reason).
  • Desperation (they can't get private insurance and hope for the public option).

Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):

  • Greed / seeking profits (Insurance companies will lose money if forced to provide care to sick)
  • Selfishness ("Why should I pay for your surgery?").
  • Government shouldn't do health care because they are incompetent ().
  • Poor people should die sooner than later.
  • It is not clear how the reform can be financed.
  • A deal with drug companies prohibiting the government to negotiate drug prices can't lower costs.

 

Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.

Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.

Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.

The personal Cost of Health Care - An international comparison

For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.

And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.

Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)

 

Cheers!


Comments (Page 1)
37 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Aug 17, 2009

I have to agree with you most of the opposition is probably on the issue of profits.

on Aug 17, 2009

Government is inefficient.  Government is broke.  Why someone would want them running healthcare is beyond me. 

 

on Aug 17, 2009

Yeah, because the private companies are sooo effecient. Check the numbers.

on Aug 17, 2009

Island Dog
Government is inefficient.  Government is broke.  Why someone would want them running healthcare is beyond me. 

 

I always wondered about that republican talking point: Why do those who claim that the government is inefficient always prove this statement to be true when they are the government.

Anyway, I didn't ask about that, I asked about the motives.

on Aug 17, 2009

True Island but you got to also think about people who can't afford it also... but then again they are most likely be black and therefore who care about them. (this is meant to be a sarcastic comment)

on Aug 17, 2009

hmm.... so Mooster, you think some motives are greed and racism?

 

on Aug 17, 2009

I saw a show on Oprah.  It had health care experts from all over the word (and the guy that made "Sick'O).  They said things like "The police, fire department, sherif dept are all run by the goverenment.  Our current health care is "For Profit" and is now going through the same disasterous results as our as our banks and economey due to it's greed (drug companies most of all). 

Their main point is that as long as our health care system is a "for profit" system, it will slowly get worse and worse.  Another point they made was: Do you want goverment agencies that you rely on for your life to be "for profit"?  Do you want to call the police and have the look up your credit rating first?  If you call the fire dept, do you want them to check the value of your home before they'll respond?  Do you want to call the sherif about your stolen car, only to have them check the blue-book value if it's worth chasing the theif?  Well that's about how health-care works now in our country.  Need a Dr apt?; a special proceedure?; an operation?; then SHOW ME THE MONEY!  You don't have enough money you say?  Just lost your job and don't have insurance you say?  TFB!

And then there's the outragous price those of us who can pay, do pay, because so many other can't.  Just ask how much your asprin, saltine crackers, or even just a bottle of water costs you at the hospital; You'd get off cheeper buying stuff from Donlad Trumps garage sale.     

Jay Leno's mother had a heart attack while on a trip in England.  After months over there (they did not check for insurance or income sorce first, they just let her in), they relased her with a bill of about $1000.  That's all, and they even appologized to Mr. Leno for having to pay that much.  Over here, just one accident or sickness that puts you in the hopital (even is you HAVE insurance) can destroy you financially for life. . .

Not reforming Health Care in this country would be like not repairing a leaking damn.  It's just too bad the drug companies and health insurance lobbiests are scarring so many people with their "Soilent Green Death Camps are comming!" rumors.

on Aug 17, 2009

Paladin, I think you're overreacting a bit there.

on Aug 17, 2009

Greed and Racism for some sure....but not the majority of who are opposed.  They believe if the government runs healthcare, people lose even more freedom as stated in the constitution.  No, I don't support this idea of the government trying to take over our lives, but its what I've been hearing from my conservative friends.

on Aug 17, 2009

@PurplePaladin: So you too think the cons' motives are greed. And about the reformers motives? I repeatedly heard Obama state that the cost of health care right now is too high ... and yet he suggests that his reform will both provide care for everyone and lower the costs for the government. That's quite a goal but probably achievable when they manage to cut unnecessary costs (like bartering for cheaper drugs). But what's the motive behind the pros? Altruism? Or simple pragmatism? Or because Obama is a communist nazi muslim terrorist from Kenya?

on Aug 17, 2009

Healthcare may need reform, but the government shouldn't be the ones doing the reforming.

The governments SOLE job should be to maintain order, nothing more or less.

 

We as a country are too complacent. If we want to fix the healthcare, we should do it ourselves instead of crying to a government that has to much power already.

 

Scariest thing about Orwell's "1984" is NOT that it is so similar to our current situation. But that if I were to claim that it was, everone would leap on me crying "Conspiricy Theorist!" without checking the facts.

on Aug 17, 2009

While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I think that we can safely disregard this as a driving motive for the US health care reform.

I'm curious, why is your first comment on your article an attempt to "disregard" something? It's my opinion that when people start ignoring other peoples opinions and belief just because it doesn't fit your perspective is when a debate becomes an argument, a pointless one at that accomplishes nothing.

From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.

From the Gov'ts point of view one could say it makes sense for them to want to pass this... if they don't they will not be able to excuse raising taxes on everyone basically making no "profit" what so ever. The idea that the Gov't can provide better care is kinda funny considering Medicare and Medicaid are not the most desired service neither in the US or the world.

But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed. So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?

Driving motives? Control. Obviously if the Gov't gets control of the Healthcare system, the insurers will lose the control they currently have. If the Gov't fails to gain control, not only will the insurers remain in control but probably gain more control, not to mention that failing to gain control, the Govt will rsit gaining control of any other concept they may have and possible even lose control of some they currently have. In the end it's all about control. It's kinda ironic to think that with all this tug of war over control of the Helathcare system in the US, nowhere do either the insurers or the Gov't have us average people as part of the groups pulling but instead we are the ones being pulled around. In the end we will never have control ourselves, isn't that sad?

 

on Aug 17, 2009

I agree with Island Dog. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but with Medicade broke, Medicare broke, and Social Security broke I don't see how someone could think that the federal government could run a fiscally sound heath care plan. Also, the police and fire departments are ran by local governments, not the federal government. Comparing the two is rediculous.

I'm all for health care reform. It's bullshit that companies can decline your claims and drop you the way the can or the way someone who is already sick has about .0000000001% chance to get covered. However, having a federal government ran health care plan will not fix the problem.

 

So pro's to reform -Increases compitition between companies(allowing competition between states would do wonders)

More limited ways inwhich insurances companies can screw comsumers

 

Cons(If public health care is implemented) - Goverment intrusion into your health needs.

on Aug 17, 2009

CharlesCS

While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I think that we can safely disregard this as a driving motive for the US health care reform.

I'm curious, why is your first comment on your article an attempt to "disregard" something? It's my opinion that when people start ignoring other peoples opinions and belief just because it doesn't fit your perspective is when a debate becomes an argument, a pointless one at that accomplishes nothing.

Simply put: Because it's stupid. Spinning euthanasia councelling into a death panel designed to kill grannys and unworthy life just seems too far fetched in these modern times, especially after WW2. But I admit that some might believe this nevertheless and are still intelectually capable of using the internet, so I'll remove that point from the OP.

From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.


From the Gov'ts point of view one could say it makes sense for them to want to pass this... if they don't they will not be able to excuse raising taxes on everyone basically making no "profit" what so ever. The idea that the Gov't can provide better care is kinda funny considering Medicare and Medicaid are not the most desired service neither in the US or the world.

Interesting. So you think they'll raise taxes not only high enough to cover the reform cost but even higher, so they get more money for federal projects?




But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed. So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?


Driving motives? Control. Obviously if the Gov't gets control of the Healthcare system, the insurers will lose the control they currently have. If the Gov't fails to gain control, not only will the insurers remain in control but probably gain more control, not to mention that failing to gain control, the Govt will rsit gaining control of any other concept they may have and possible even lose control of some they currently have. In the end it's all about control. It's kinda ironic to think that with all this tug of war over control of the Helathcare system in the US, nowhere do either the insurers or the Gov't have us average people as part of the groups pulling but instead we are the ones being pulled around. In the end we will never have control ourselves, isn't that sad?

 

Control for control's sake? Or do you mean control over the market via regulations for the sake of ... let's say stability or predictability?

And frankly I don't understand your last point. Don't you have a democracy where you directly vote for your representatives in the government? How can you say you-the-people don't have control? Or do you simply resent that you-the-other-people currently have control?

 

on Aug 17, 2009

Arrodo, please add the granny thing back in. It's not only stupid, its an outright fabrication. Then we could also argue about the if the holocaust happened. 

Charles, why would the goverment want control? I thought the only goal of politicians apart from ideological ones was to be reelected, so they hopefully make sound decisions to sway the voters. I don't see more control helping them get reelected.

 

 

P.S. private overhead was 11-30 %, while medicare/mediaid whatver was 4%, that what I read in some stats anyway. 

37 Pages1 2 3  Last