[redsniper]

We don't have ... one giant national police system.

[Liberator]

You guys wail and moan about the corruption of the current system, which BTW I freely admit and have been doing so the vast majority of this discussion needs some improvement in CERTAIN areas.  But I hardly see Government as a suitable replacement or supplement as I see it because Government itself is rife with corruption and poor leadership, so how can we expect anything they create to be any less vulnerable to corruption or mishandling?

[Flipside]

The main difference, to me, is that rife corruption in the Government can, at least, be voted on, whereas rife corruption in Industry can be a lot less concerned about public opinion. When this comes to things like primary services, I've always felt it's better to be overseen by an organisation that at least has a stake in the outcome.

Health is one of those situations where consumer choice doesn't work quite the same, there's a difference between choosing whether to buy the latest Video Game and choosing whether to pay for an operation for your child that will leave you bankrupt, but greatly improve their chances for a good and long life. That's not a choice, and it makes me slightly uncomfortable that there's no real comeback whatsoever on pharmaceutical and medical giants for presenting that kind of choice to people.

[Mars]

lol, bet you're gonna see a lot of counterplans.

[Scotty]

@Mars:  Yeah, I can't wait for that .

I just want to see how nuclear war will pop up this year

[Flipside]

Well, my own take of the immediate effects of this are:

You are going to see a number of unemployed Medical professionals, as private companies are left by their lower-band customers, and there will be a lot of complaining because jobs in a State-Funded system will not be as well paid as private practices, so you will see a separation of skill levels, the highly skilled professionals will go into the private practices, and the less qualified ones will go into the public sector (for the main part, something not dissimilar to the legal system in the UK, where the high-grades tend to go into defence work, not sure if it works the same in the US, I believe it does).

For the US, this leaves an interesting question because of the proliferation of Medical Malpractice cases that seem to appear in your courts. There's a risk here of, with lower-skilled professionals, that the number of malpractice cases against the state will be higher than against private practitioners. That will be an interesting political hurdle.

So, yes, the changeover will be rough, there's no doubt about that, however, the longer term effects of it are interesting, the requirement of extra medical facilities to deal with the new influx of patients will actually eventually cause an increase in the number of medical jobs, and encourage research into cheaper ways to produce effective treatments, since Governments inevitably buy from the cheapest bidder, and whoever gets the contract get a nice juicy income.

The main risk is bureaucratic bloat, but that's why it's important to have people who don't trust the system, or possibly, even wish to see an end to it, because they will watch it like a hawk.

[bash]

Why do we need a federal healthcare system? Why isn't all of this done at the State level? We don't have one giant national Firefighting system, or one giant national police system. Why do we need one giant national healthcare system? Assuming we did go to universal healthcare (which isn't the target of current reform proposals anyway), why do it at the federal level instead of the state level?

It seems to me that doing it at the state level would be much better for many reasons. States are pretty diverse, and there wouldn't have to be an ill-fitting "one size fits all" that's uncomfortable for everyone. Instead, each state could design a program that works best for it. Furthermore, by letting each state do its own thing, you allow for competitive comparison. Survival of the fittest healthcare system, basically. Also, if people don't like the way their state handles things, there is always the "vote with your feet" option. That becomes much more difficult if it's the same in every state (much easier to move state-to-state than to leave the country). Finally, the constitutional mandate for federal healthcare is weak at best IMO. Letting states take care of it themselves seems much more inline with the constitution.

Maybe I can add something to that.

First of all, please bear in mind that I'm from Germany (as already mentioned, we have an overall health care system and yes, I love it ) and I don't have a vast insight into the American healthcare system.

I believe what will happen in such a system is something that we are kind of trying to compensate for in our own healthcare system at the moment.
If you have different healtcare systems in different states, the problem won't be for patients to move to the system which suits them best, the real problem will be that doctors will probably do the same on a much larger scale. If you are a doctor in a region where population and overall income are hight, then you will probably have more money in that system, which will ultimately result in higher incomes for medical personal, better medical equipment, resulting in an overall simpler life. I guess everyone can imagine what will happen to remoter places like Alaska. What good is health insurance if you have to drive an hundred miles to find a doctor?
A challenge for an overall healthcare system is to compensate for such things and I'd guess it would be pretty hard to do that on a state level.

[iamzack]

I don't really see the point of little state systems for something like health care. People have pretty much the same health care needs everywhere. For stuff like police forces, highway systems, etc, that can change somewhat based on geography, I see reasons for it...

But stuff like education, health, etc, it seems like if it works in one state, it'll work in another state. Just because you live in Kansas is no reason not to learn about the ocean.

[Scotty]

I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds.  You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read:  NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause.  If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.

[iamzack]

Well, yeah, but the cancer treatment is the same, isn't it? The cost is probably about the same. So I don't get how that would affect a national health insurance plan. I recognize that for there to be so much hype around states' rights, there may be something to it, but if it's there, then, well, I'm not seeing it.

[High Max]

Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?

[Ghostavo]

I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds.  You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read:  NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause.  If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.

Then change the equipment and staff of the hospital to reflect those rates. It's not really an argument against universal health care. You don't have to make every single hospital exactly the same. If that were true (which isn't), the same could be said for the hypothetical state health cares, with each city having different disease rates.

*rant*

Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right?  

[iamzack]

Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?

In a perfect world, people could always choose to have better diets, avoid secondhand smoke, get a job that doesn't increase health risks, et cetera. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, and people don't always have those options.

[Scotty]

Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?

Okay, apologies in advance.

Max, think about this.  Actually think.  If everyone moved away from industrial areas, what would happen?  One of two things:  1) Economy goes 'clunk.'  Moreso than it has already.  2) Industry would follow the people, which creates the EXACT SAME THING.  You are also forgetting that not everyone has the means, nor the desire to remove themselves from said area.  It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with smart choices on the part of the person living there.

Now for some of the other points.  1)How the hell does self-respect factor into where you live in the country.  Non-sequitor.  2)How the hell do you forestall lung cancer by cleaning up your diet?  3)That will power you love to prattle on about has not a single iota of bearing on where someone lives.

Dang it people, had to click the reply button three times to post this.

EDIT:  Saw this.

I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds.  You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read:  NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause.  If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.

Then change the equipment and staff of the hospital to reflect those rates. It's not really an argument against universal health care. You don't have to make every single hospital exactly the same. If that were true (which isn't), the same could be said for the hypothetical state health cares, with each city having different disease rates.

This was a response to zack's supposition that health care needs are on par with education in that there is little to no variance between geographic areas.

EDIT THE SECOND:  Also, I am more readily in favor of state size healthcare than the massive federal plan.  Personal preference.

[Ghostavo]

But isn't the argument the same for education? Different schools having different needs according to their location and type of students?

In that sense it can be said to be exactly like health care.

Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding the discussion.

[Liberator]

The main risk is bureaucratic bloat, but that's why it's important to have people who don't trust the system, or possibly, even wish to see an end to it, because they will watch it like a hawk.

If it's one thing that the US does NOT do well...it's ending or controlling bureaucratic bloat.

[iamzack]

I think Scotty is misunderstanding somewhat. Universal health care doesn't change that hospitals in different areas specialize in different services. Hospital specialization addresses any geographical affectation of health problems. If an area has high cancer rates due to industry, then the hospitals in that area will probably attract doctors who specialize in cancer, and those hospitals will become cancer centers. That's all completely unaffected by who pays the bill.

Education is a terrible comparison, now that I've thought about it, so ignore that I mentioned it at all.

[High Max]

Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right?  

Don't be silly and read my post more carefully since I assumed certain people wouldn't look at the wording I chose carefully and think I meant it was always their fault and could always be prevented.

So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced

I said much could be prevented and reduced; I didn't say all. Read more carefully. Seriously; if you read it more and didn't skim like it seems you have, you would know that it isn't a mindless rant.

@Scotty: Health is more important than economy if those were your only choices, though better economies might equal better health in some ways, but would also equal worse health when it comes to pollution and industrialization and chemicals in certain foods. A job isn't worth dying over. Your life is priceless and you yourself can never be replaced if you know what I mean; a job can always be replaced. Or maybe you can have the best of both worlds and work in an industry and have a great economy with great health on certain jobs if people in those industries had better masks and better protective clothing and maybe better procedures and handling of certain things and it was a rule to wear it as well as advising all employees thoroughly of the dangers of removing those safe guards from their bodies while in the factory.

[iamzack]

No job means you're pretty much out of luck. Without an address, how are you supposed to get a new job? And how are you supposed to keep that new job when you don't get to go home to shower at night? Takes a while to save up enough for downpayment+rent on an apartment when you're working at whatever joint hires a homeless person.

People end up trapped in jobs they hate, that are even sometimes damaging to their health not just because they themselves like having a safe place to sleep, but because they are providing for a family.

Poverty is a vicious cycle.

Like I said before, in a perfect world the things you say would happen/exist. It's not a perfect world, and we have to work with what we've got.

[Ghostavo]

Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right?  

Don't be silly and read my post more carefully since I assumed certain people wouldn't look at the wording I chose carefully and think I meant it was always their fault and could always be prevented.

So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced

I said much could be prevented and reduced; I didn't say all. Read more carefully. Seriously; if you read it more and didn't skim like it seems you have, you would know that it isn't a mindless rant.

It WAS a mindless rant. The discussion is about the form by which health care should be conducted, changed, etc. and you suddenly go on about lifestyles and food consumption that while on the overall theme (health) has absolutely nothing to do with health care.