Interesting take by a liberal physician who now opposes Fed.gov medical care

Actually, the U.S. taxpayer has been hosed since the inception of the Marshall Plan over half a century ago.

Why we still spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to protect Europe is beyond me; they can survive, or not, on their own dime. Then let's see what becomes of their free healthcare.

You do realize the military is a paragon of efficiency when compared to other parts of Fed.gov?

The federal government, with its lazy employees, its inefficient bureaucracy and its lack of accountability in all matters would be a disaster if they became involved in overseeing the healthcare of normal Americans.

Clock-punchers whose only goal is to increase their budget year after year would wreak havoc on my healthcare needs. Picture a normal American having to deal with the typical DMV employee in order to see a doctor...

 

If a paragon of efficiency has another meaning, I guess I understand your joke.

The Pentagon is a paragon of plunder of the treasury, rather as Ike noted in 1961.

 

I agree with you and Ike.

But compared to the rest of Fed.gov, the U.S. military is a cost-effective organization that is prudent with taxpayer money.

Scary, isn't it, to think just how corrupt and inefficient the rest off the government is?

And leftists want these lazy bureaucrats to oversee the healthcare of normal Americans? Why in the world do you believe this is a good idea?

 

Well, at least it is possible to audit the many other more common federal agencies. Oversight by way of the GOA is possible and practical.

Not so with the Pentagon, a creature that exists on its own. Like the Fed and the gold supposedly at Fort Knox, nobody can be allowed to inspect.

Therefore, at least in theory it is possible to construct a system that COULD provide cost effective universal healthcare. That does not mean that Utopia would be the result, it means only that it is possible, just as other countries have done.

 

That's fair and obvious. But you are deliberately ignoring that European health care is CHEAPER than the United States'. So saying they can afford it only because of U.S. security spending makes no sense. If they had to increase defense spending, do you think they would switch to a U.S.-style health-care system? Of course not, because that would be MORE expensive.

Okay.

That doesn't make sense. The U.S. only spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, and that's enough to dominate the world. 40% of GDP on defense is a full-on war footing, not what you spend during peacetime.

So the rest of your post proceeds from a false premise. Even your 10-15% fallback is not realistic.

Europe's economy is roughly the same size as ours. Suggesting that if Europe spent 3.5% of GDP on defense, they would be a global superpower. Meaning that if all they are interested in is home defense, they can get by with significantly less -- say, 2% to 2.5%.

That number is not big enough to crimp their health-care system. Particularly because the alternative health-care system would cost MORE, not less, and thus make no sense in a country trying to economize.

 

something like 40% of US healthcare is already run by and controlled by state and federal government. The dems always act as if we have zero percent. It's all or nothing with the left. Either we have 100% single payer gov't run health care, or they try to make us out to be an evil place who hates it's people.

 

The US federal government spending is about 8% of our GDP, and the states spend about 10% of their state budgets on Medicaid, so the US state and federal governments are spending a lot on healthcare. At least that is what I see from a few minutes of research. Does anyone have any more accurate data?

 

Sure, and in theory Fed.gov might someday pay off its $22 trillion in debt.

And you do realize that once we commit to a Fed.gov universal healthcare plan there is no coming back? No matter how inefficient or corrupt or unsuccessful a government program is, such programs are rarely eliminated for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars.

No matter how bad our healthcare system becomes, we'd never be able to put that genie back in the bottle.

Right now, most Americans are happy with their healthcare, except for having to deal with the rising premiums the Obamacare debacle caused.

I don't disagree that poor people should have access to healthcare; but why dumb down the entire system in order to provide everyone with inadequate service?

 

Of course getting Gov't bureaucracy to run healthcare has resulted in a massive inefficient bureaucracy - as is the case with these other systems.

This does not change the fact that our system is worse. We deliver middle of the pack care - at roughly double the cost

The Conservative Case for Universal Healthcare
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Your comments with respect to "the free market" are of no value because there is no "free market" in the private sector of our healthcare system. It is Oligopolies who engage in price fixing and various other anti competitive practices - which has only served to increase costs - rather than reduce them.

Extreme socialism and extreme capitalism meet at the far end of the spectrum - in both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production. This is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed - which is exacerbated when you get too much power in the hands of a few elite - which is exactly what we have.

Our system combines the worse elements of extreme capitalism with the worst elements of extreme socialism into an ugly monster which I call the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

Platitudes such as "just give it to the private sector and the free market will take care of everything" is just that - a Platitude.

What we have is a system of legalized extortion. In 2017 the total healthcare spend in this nation was 3.5 Trillion. This the entire Federal tax revenue.

 

Yes, it is cheaper. Just as healthcare in Mexico is cheaper. And no, other countries would not switch to a U.S. style system if they ran out of taxpayer money, they would simply cut back available services and eliminate much of what they offer.

I used the 40 percent of GDP figure because that's what the U.S. government spent gearing up for WWII, when the U.S. had to build an army to confront the Nazis. If the U.S. was to withdraw all of its forces today, Europe would resemble the pre-WWII United States in its military capability.

And I'm glad you're using Europe as a whole now for comparison purposes; individual countries in Europe are much smaller than the U.S., and in total the U.S. still spends more on defense than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the UK and Japan combined.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-countries-combined-infographic/#1184550979b6

So if forced to defend itself – if individual countries did not simply capitulate to Russia and/or China – these countries would need to drastically increase their defense spending, and my 10-15 percent of GDP is very realistic, if not too low. If you believe there would be an alternative to this, please tell me what it might be; how would Europe defend itself if the U.S. defense umbrella was removed?

This total WOULD be enough to impact each country's ability to pay for healthcare for its citizens; again, tell me how these countries would be able to run their governments with adequate funding if they were forced to spend massively on their own defense?

This has been an interesting debate, thanks for participating...

 

He forgot to mention, on top of needing office staff he'll be getting less money per patient too.

 

The money part is easy, all things considered. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on universal healthcare than on perpetual wars brought under fraud, any day.

The big question is, "can we but the Genie of Healthcare For Profit back in the bottle?" It will be a long battle. Washington is the home of special interests, a true Gangsta's Paradise.

 

We certainly agree about the gangster mentality in DC.

A bit off-topic here, but it's my OP so I'll stray a little:

Why are so many liberals opposed to private healthcare companies making a profit?

True story and example; my for-profit doctor's medical group and my for-profit health insurance recently helped me with an issue concerning upcoming appointments, a prescription and waiving a referral requirement, including verifying if a doctor I needed to see was within my healthcare provider's network.

The employees of both the insurance company and my doctor's office worked diligently to resolve the issues. These employees knew that I, as a paying customer, required them to address a somewhat unique set of circumstances. After only an hour or so of returning phone calls and working with them, the issues were resolved in a timely manner.

Why? Because as profit-seeking businesses, the employees knew that they would be evaluated on merit and that I, as a customer, could easily share my feelings about the service I received with their supervisors and managers.

Compare this to a recent trip I made to my local state DMV office, where I again had a set of unique circumstances concerning a utility trailer that had expired registration and needed to have its hidden vehicle identification number verified.

The employees could care less if I was assisted in a timely manner. After the initial person was unable to fix the issue, a second employee was called over but she, too, was stumped. The two of them called a supervisor over, and she made it plainly clear that I was ruining her day with my problem. All this was done over a period of a couple hours, as I had to wait for these employees to be available. And this was after the initial 90 minute wait to simply be called forward to an available window.

The supervisor kept trying to convince me to some back the following day, as if this would magically solve the issue. And it would solve it, for her.

A second supervisor, or maybe a manager, finally was summoned and he seemed to be able to resolve the issue I was having with the trailers's ID number. It took four hours, and the time I spent waiting was quite revealing just how lazy and incompetent most of the employees were. They seemed to taking constant breaks, some were quite rude to their 'customers,' and none seemed to have any initiative for problem solving.

Most simply ignored the customers at their windows while processing paperwork, gossiping with their coworkers. They showed a universal distaste for the public. But to be fair, the customers themselves were quite surly after long waits.

The DMV is a necessary evil in our lives. They don't make a profit but are prime examples of a monopoly of government services.

So, tell me how a Fed.gov universal healthcare doesn't quickly become a DMV...

 

A single anecdote that is very instructive. These people have no clue what makes private enterprise work. True private enterprise is in the business of making a profit. But if they do not satisfy the customer as best they can some other company will and the first company make no profit, goes out of business and lets go of all their employees. Government is in the public business to assure consistency and do what their bosses (other government people) want. That means everyone must follow the many but consistent regulations and rules, so everyone is treated equally as in a one-size fits all. If the people they serve are satisfied, well that's nice and dandy and a little icing on the cake, but it does not motivate them as they don't get any more pay -- as is the care in private enterprise markets.

They have no clue why in the early 2000s almost 90% of the people were satisfied or completely satisfied with their private enterprise practitioners and insurance companies; they can not comprehend such in their world and it is completely over their head why the preponderance of people would not prefer their dreamed up vision of heath care.

 

You seem to leave out the fact that the government is answerable to us, the citizenry, via the ballot box, and so is their budget. So those "government bosses" have an incentive to provide decent service, and thus their employees do, too.

You also seem to ignore the fact that many of the strings and procedures that government employees must follow are designed to safeguard the public purse. So they are trying to satisfy several competing demands. All while being slandered by people like you.

 

I oppose it only because it is an unnecessary practice and therefore expensive. It's a personal choice, IMO whether to partake in any insurance program. Sometimes it's good and necessary, sometimes it's not worth the money.

In the medical field it could still be a private option, but it should not be mandatory. Healthcare can be delivered without an insurance company making a profit.

I'm glad that the good company employees did their job and your requirements were met. Under universal, single payer, whatever, their salaries would not be a part of your annual insurance cost.

So I don't hate the insurance companies, I simply see that they cost a lot and don't contribute anything meaningful to healthcare.

 

I have never voted for the Director of CMS, the Secretary of HHS the Director of the EPA, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Transportation agency, etc, etc, etc. If I have a complaint with my medical insurance company they readily and politely discuss it with me and listen to what I have to say, whether they end up agreeing with me or not. If I have a complaint with Medicare they tell me to bugger off, or if I have a real complaint they tell me to fill out this multi-page form (18pp in a recent example) and then after six months they tell me again to bugger off.

 

Of course not. You voted for the people who appointed them, and the people who created the position/agency/job they are filling. They are dependent on you, and accountable to you through their bosses.

Yay for the unprovable anecdote. Point is, the government is not some unaccountable THEY. It is us, and it is controlled by us via the ballot box.

 

You believe the government worker is going to really care about me because her boss will care, because his boss will care, because her boss will care because his boss will care because I vote for her boss, just as much as the private employee will care about me because she can get more pay and keep her job. Dream on, Leon.

If you want a provable anecdote send me an 9x12 envelope with about $6 postage and $25 for my effort and I'll make and send you a copy.

 

Name one, just one Fed.gov agency that deals with the public and is efficient and cost-effective and known for excellent customer service. I'll wait...

 

You are correct; liberals/progressives/socialists have no concept of the free market and how competition breeds excellence.

Sadly, this common sense notion used to be taught at the high school level; now, children are taught to detest capitalism and truly believe government is the best answer to solve problems.

We are truly doomed...

 

The FAA? I'm not sure "excellent customer service" is always applicable, and they are slow sometimes, but otherwise they aren't bad to deal with.

 

Yeah, the FFA was much-improved after Reagan fired all the striking union members, I'll give you that.

What do we when all the new public union health workers strike one day? Think we'll have president with the courage to fire them all?