The problem with your opinion is that you honestly believe that a business has the right to make a profit, whatever the means. Clearly the means in this case are of a kind that is harmful to the public (millions of people are denied the basic right to medical care), making the business model one that needs limitations and modifications.


You realize that it's not them paying for your bills, but other customers. When you pay the insurance company, you're paying in order to receive care when you'll need it - which will be paid at that point by other insurance holders who do not need it right then. In order to maintain and manage this mutual system, the company takes a premium which is their business model. Or at least, this is how the concept of insurance is supposed to work. The problem rises however from the concept of 'profit'. Making a reasonable profit while funding healthcare from a mutual pool is one thing. Maximizing profits by milking people's pockets while holding them hostage is another. The business model is no longer 'getting a commission for managing the funds and services' but 'maximing funds while minimizing services' - making everything in between become the premium.

look from a moral standpoint i agree with you for the most part, ideally every one should be able to get health if they need it. however, the reality of the current situation is that a private health insurance company is in business to PROFIT from the service they are selling you. in the real world it makes no sense to insure someone who is already sick who you know is going to be constantly needing health care.

while were at it, what exactly are we considering the "basic human right to health care"? are you saying that the services of a doctor who has spent a decade going to college and probably incurred a hundred thousand in student loan bills are now a "basic human right" and for all intents and purposes he/she is now public property? i would say that the right to seek health care without discrimination is a basic human right. however i would argue that the ability to profit (weather they choose to or not) from said services is the basic right of the physician.

So, what you're saying is that we're intolerant of your intolerance? That's like telling a homosexual that he should stop being intolerant towards you when you're telling him that he's going to hell because he prefers a man's anus to a woman's vagina. The problem is that so many of the conservatives are basing their opinions on their morals which they think come from a discriminatory book of magic. I recognize the fact that not all conservatives (even Hitchens sides with the right on various issues) are religious but there's certainly a ****-ton of them that are.

You've just managed to spell out exactly why we don't need something like that in this country. It's truly unfortunate that the Democrats felt that they had to pass something just because the Republicans as well as the moderate Democrats refuse to sign anything that actually helps Americans & doesn't line their pockets with cash.

And we're saying that's wrong. In an ideal free market, there would be other insurance companies that people could turn to, thus making this business model infeasible. However, they're all playing the same game - what needs to be introduced is an insurance organization whose purpose is to not drain its clients for profits, and the government, in this case, is the only such organization with the power and resources to do so.

Do I think the government should drive these private insurance companies off the map? Of course not, but there needs to be a balancing of the playing field in the favor of the insured to ensure that they actually have some kind of fair coverage and reasonable expectation of continued coverage, even if their toilet goes down the crapper.

On the note of liberals ignoring Wookie's opinions: this is not true. I bought Ninja Gaiden for the DS solely on his opinion. I've only played about 15 minutes of it, but it seems to be an enjoyable game.

[ Edit: To clarify, I'm a moderate with liberal leanings on a number of issues, not a full-blooded liberal. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't have my soul yet! ]

I appreciate, although I don't see why you can't just fully take part in the debate. I understand you don't like to be attacked personally, but it's a lot less likely to happen when you provide some solid arguments for your sometimes provoking opinions.

In my personal opinion it's like you're asking for these attacks because you're always making these provoking statements about (what you're calling) left wingers, warmers, etc.

So, you know, when you're complaining about left-wing people saying things that would upset 'most Americans', take a look at yourself first. Because you're really doing the same thing to a lot of people here. Maybe sometimes in jest, sure, we're all guilty of that sometimes. But text on a screen often comes across very different.

Anyway, I think I'm getting the gist of it (Republican dislike of universal health care) from Lord Kuat now though. And well yeah, I could've known all that, it's true. It's just that I want to hear it from you personally instead of just going off some (imagined) stereotype.



Nah, don't. You were right, it was an outright stupid statement. One of the stupidest things I've ever posted, even. But cut me some slack, it was already Christmas Eve over here, so I had a few beers before logging on to massassi.



This. I think the current situation in the American healthcare, as well as the global economic crisis are some prime examples of why you cannot leave everything to the market.

I don't get what's with all the labels.
Left, right, whatever.
Some of my views are considered right, some left... It's not like I go check online to see what my fellow lefties or righties are saying and echo their opinion instead of forming my own.
I listen to the situation, get views from all the sides I can, and eventually form a solid opinion.
Of course, I do -start- with an opinion, but when something I didn't consider is brought up (which often happens when you are still only learning the facts) that opinion changes.

So throw whatever label at me you want, just don't expect them to actually mean anything, especially when you are being dismissive about it.
(and yes I realize I'm a little late with this post but still, here it is)

No, that's stupid. What customers will be attracted by this 'we cover pre-existing conditions' business? The customers with pre-existing conditions : The ones that only cost the company money. Then the company goes out of business. And the people with the pre-existing conditions still aren't covered.

In Australia we have insurance companies that cover pre-existing conditions, our country has managed to avoid collapsing despite this so far =p

Full circle. Awesome.

Hopefully the gist isn't that we are Ayn Rand clones who are selfish to the extreme

But in all seriousness, I really hope you see that there is a not wholly irrational/horrible opposition to nationalized healthcare.

As far as being "republican", I don't know if I like being labeled that. I don't like anyone in the party, really, and completely disagree with their social conservative views (anti abortion/gay marriage/etc)



It's all good. Wish you happy holidays, dude. Drink up!

Nobody is trying to nationalize health care at this point. Why do we keep talking about that?

That's why you should read the thread.

It's a goal of many people. You can't say that nationalized healthcare is irrelevant to debate at this juncture, because it's a "next step" in a sense. Not now, maybe not in 5 years. But it's a destination.

Ok, I wasn't really trying to label you though.



You too man, have fun.

(And snow started to float down in the thread Hollywood style)

Again, what I'm saying and you're not understanding is that to our opinion, if profit is more important than morals then something is broken. "Morals" for us are not a fairy tale concept, but an important functional element in a society.

We live in a society. We don't function as independent entities, services available to the public are comprised of many moving parts. You don't need the doctor to be a volunteer because there a plenty of working models that allow doctors to make a very good living while still allowing care to be affordable. It's naive to think that there are only two options, insurance providers making killer profits or doctors volunteering with no compensation.

The educational system is next. France, which is generally rated fairly high, if not the highest by the World Health Organization has free school for many of their citizens. My wife was able to go to a trade school & receive her diploma in restaurant services, free of charge. They also provide REAL internship opportunities, which many schools in the U.S. fail at. My wife interned at some of the premiere French clubs, hotels & restaurants WHILE going to school. This made it much easier for her to transition in to a REAL job once she graduated. The problem with what you're saying is that doctor's shouldn't have had to spend that much ****ing money on their education. I suspect that we could drastically reduce the amount of tuition simply by reducing or eliminating the cost of college athletic programs. Sports will live on without ****-tons of money from universities each year. I wish America put half as much emphasis on scientific education as we do on sports.

Agreed. I find it disturbing that MU's coach makes a quarter of a million annually, bonuses and incentives notwithstanding.

Private freestanding medical schools with no sports teams still cost ~25k. Sports has nothing to do with it.

Currently medicare reimbursement is a mythical entity, like a unicorn. Pay from the government is horrible and always late and not enough. See something like here.

The government has shown that it is incapable of even running a small scale program like medicare (when comparing it to an entity that could cover everybody). What makes you guys think that our government can run healthcare?

I trust the government to regulate and enforce laws that it puts into place. Put up rules and regulations for current insurance companies to follow. But you guys are frankly daft if you think it can run healthcare well.

I wouldn't do business with insurance companies that refuse people with pre-existing conditions if I could help it—even though I'm healthy.

At my school, our football and basketball team make enough money in revenue to completely cover their own costs, including high coach salary and full ride scholarships for all their starting players, and still have enough money left over to cover almost all of the costs of the less popular sports programs. And this is true of pretty much any of the major universities/colleges. They don't have to raise tuition (and my university doesn't) to cover sports program costs. Those sports programs often make so much money they pay for other things at the school.

I understand that our current government is incapable of doing many of the things that many of us here are expecting them to do & that other government's manage to do fairly well. However, I think that's the point. We need this "change" that politicians have been talking about for so long. We need to government to change so that they CAN run a system like we expect. The government isn't going to change itself unless we make it & simply voting isn't enough, considering the fact that Democrats & Republicans are more alike than different.


Not all medical schools are private or free-standing. None of the doctor's that I go to in my area went to a school like that. They all went to universities with popular sports teams that pay coaches millions of dollars each year. I was also just using doctor's as an example. I'm ultimately referring to the cost of tuition in general.



We're also building a $252 million dollar arena that will be finished in 2010. The last time that I checked, my state had 576,000 people that were uninsured but yet we don't seem to have any problem building new arena's & paying coaches millions of dollars a year.

You can say the same thing about actors and professional athletes, the amount of money spent on their salaries is ridiculous. There's better uses for that money.

Yes, but a student's tuition isn't going to pay the salary of an actor or professional athlete. I'm not a communist.

THEN STOP GOING TO THE MOVIES AND STOP WATCHING SPORTS!!!!!
seriously if there is a market for it the high pay will follow. destroy the market, the high salaries go away. if people actually rallied and thought it was worth the effort to cause change personally rather than whining to their politicians i would be amazed and dare i say even proud. *

*not shouting at you specifically... just anyone complaining about high salaries.

too bad more people dont share your sentiment. and i am not being sarcastic.

and again what i am saying that you are apparently not understanding is that to me morals ARE more important than profits. however in the real world we live in business are not always guided by morals nor are they required to be. if they were guided by morals over profits then things would be great. however again, they are not. again, it is not the responsibility of insurance companies to make health care affordable. it is their responsibility to fulfill their responsibilities to their clients IF they do need medical care.

people have preexisting conditions? then maybe we should be having the government looking for a way to subsidize their coverage and not simply FORCING companies to make obviously bad business decisions and then expect them to just eat it.

If you can name a single reliable insurance company that fits this criteria, please suggest it.

It's not a problem of people not backing up words with actions - it's a problem of no viable alternatives. This is an example where the free market has failed and needs to be corrected with a dash of socialism.