Before I begin, don't take this as an endorement for an increased welfare state. This is just me trying to structure the pro argument as I understand it. I sounds given the financial crisis, the socialized medicine pitch is saying that Dad (i.e. the government) can start putting our medical insurance on his credit card (i.e. the deficit) so that we have more cash on hand to invest in our own business (i.e. the economy/capital way of life) and then make enough to pay him back with interest later on so that he can afford his credit card bill (i.e. a VISA card issued by China) and later pay for the toys and stuff (i.e. national infrastructure) his other kids want.
It seems to make a degree of sense when laid out this way. Especially when looked at in light of our economic downturn when fewer people have jobs, thus meaning that fewer people are getting the medical care that is hingent upon that employment.
I guess what I don't know is if it all works out. Does the economic stimulus offered to businesses actually remove enough of a burden to allow those businesses to thrive and pump billions back into the governemnt? I heard today on NPR that Ford pays more for medical benefits than it does for steel. Wow. Take that away and you have more proffitability and competitiveness, i.e. more tax revenues as we become turn the trade defecit around. Turning around the trade defecit at least to some degree could then chip away at that trillion dollar budget defecit.
I'm sure I should be asking my brother who's getting a Ph.D. in public finance if any of this is viable, or I should at least read a scholarly essay or two, but I think I'm too intimidated by the potential graphs they'll inevitably throw at me.
It's a wierd sacrifice to trade in the capitalist mechanisms that govern the American medical establishment for the sake of disentangling the corporate establishment that never belonged there in the first place and has this medical millstone around it's neck. Is it feasible for the government to take that burden from business so that it can float and compete? Will quality of care go to pot?
In any case, if it's all going to fall apart, I hope it waits another 15 years so that I stay healthy up until I'm supposed to start getting prostate exams. That way I can blame the failed system on my failure to let a doctor check my oil once a year. And while we're on that subject, I've never understood how we can put a man on the freakin' moon, harness nuclear energy, and perform face transplants, but we can't come up with anything better to check your prostate than to have a doctor lube up his finger and poke you in the bum. Something's wrong here and I think we're being lied to....
Temple Square June 2017
5 years ago
1 comment:
Ford pays more on insurance than steel because unionized labor has allowed the workers to get what they want which short term is good but long term causes prices to become less competitive etc then Ford has to lay off these workers because they can't afford to pay their insurance and pensions.
Socialized medicine can kind of work but then you have to take into account how much we already pay for free insurance (which is easier to get then you might think I got Jane and Ashley on it) then multiply that by however much you think you want the government to control and realize that your taxes or the value of the dollar will hurt you in the long run as you either have to pay a much higher percent of you annual income on big government (which doesn't pay as much as you would think on the patient receiving care instead it goes to the buerocracy and supporting staff and infrastructure that is put in place to derive socialized healthcare, and you're looking at wages, insurance, retirement, utilities, etc for everyone employed by uncle Sam). The quality won't suffer too much although it will just take longer to recieve care as you have to cut through more red tape and follow standardized medical treatments to utilize doctors time and medicines etc. Extraneous precautions like CT scans and MRIs won't be used nearly as much since government is trying to keep costs down and won't authorize their use without an obvious need. Other problems are doctors haven't traditionally been involved in law and government as other professions are. The real costs of medicine in America is a result of lawers in my opinion. Malpractice insurance is sky high because lawsuits have no cap and no limitation. Insurance companies have cleverly cooked up laws to where the highest are compensating the average physician 30% of the cost the government in more like 10% the cost. and insurance companies play the odds for a larger percentage of medical costs than you might think where they just don't pay at all since the doctor would have to pay more for his staff's and lawyer's time than is worth extracting the costs and since they aren't into government and law they just piss and moan and move on.
I think children under 18 should be covered and they are for the most part but adults need to take more responsibility medicare is already so easy to qualify and recieve in my opinion if America lived within their means many of these problems with healthcare and the economy could be averted. I don't think its wise to expand the government to solve these kinds of problems the government sucks at reacting quickly and using tax payers money efficiently. The government is running popular opinion these days instead of being run by popular opinion Obama has very few critics no matter how stupid he is, and this poses the greatest problem of them all! no checks, no balances. Can we solve this problem without giving the Government more power? I am interested in knowing, for some reason we turn to the government to save us when we're in trouble but is that really the only idea? I think academics and government officials like the idea of greater government control but they aren't always the most in touch with reality and long term solutions I think we should expand the possibilities. Tell me what you think about all this its interesting because its my future
Post a Comment