Originally Posted by 44j

I would like a challenger to debate with me whether we should improve our current system in the united on healthcare or switch to national healthcare.
I am on everyday and would like to be a regular debater.

Which position do you want? I might be interested.

"Improving the current system" is a vague concept. I think there are certain objectives the system should meet, such as

1) It should not reject people for pre-existing conditions
2) It should not drop people when they get ill (if it does then the system is basicall dysfunctional.)
3) It should subsidize healthacare for those who are not able to pay without first bancrupting them
4) It should encourage preventive healthcare
5) It should be cost-effective.
6) There may be more

I am for any system that satisfies these objectives. What does it matter if it is called "improved system" or "national system"? The question needs to be framed in terms of objectives, not labels.

Originally Posted by modulus

"Improving the current system" is a vague concept. I think there are certain objectives the system should meet, such as

1) It should not reject people for pre-existing conditions OK2) It should not drop people when they get ill (if it does then the system is basicall dysfunctional.)OK
3) It should subsidize healthacare for those who are not able to pay without first bancrupting themNot OK. Should the rest of the population have to go bankrupt in order to prevent an individual from doing so?
4) It should encourage preventive healthcare OK
5) It should be cost-effective.OK
6) There may be more

I am for any system that satisfies these objectives. What does it matter if it is called "improved system" or "national system"? The question needs to be framed in terms of objectives, not labels.

You missed a few. Here are some more reforms needed.

1. Tort Reform. Make speculative lawsuits expensive for the party suing. That will help curtail frivilous lawsuits paid for by a % of potential award basis.
2. A national set of healthcare guidelines that, if followed, absolve a doctor/hospital from liability.
3. A national prescription drug protocol that puts the FDA in charge of drug evaluations and once approved, absolves big pharma from future liability.

One of the biggest costs in medicine is defensive or CYA medicine. By establishing governmentally-approved guidelines, we can remove a huge cost that providers pay via high insurance rates, etc., that are currently passed on to patients in the form of high drug prices, high hospital charges and expensive doctor visit bills.

I was thinking more along the lines of reducing wasteful spending in our current system. My position is to improve upon our own. The government has clearly shown us they cannot run healthcare for us. One question is:

Do insurance companies only reject people because of a preexisting condition, only because they are afraid that person will become ill to easily causing the company to spend more money? If so, then the responsible solution is to fire the CEO'S that rake in big bucks at the expense of the consumer, and replace them with responsible ones with actual common sense.

So you are right, (sorry for not being very specific) however there are so many ways we could repair our system now. Starting with your ideas.

Originally Posted by 44j

I was thinking more along the lines of reducing wasteful spending in our current system. My position is to improve upon our own. The government has clearly shown us they cannot run healthcare for us. One question is:

Do insurance companies only reject people because of a preexisting condition, only because they are afraid that person will become ill to easily causing the company to spend more money? If so, then the responsible solution is to fire the CEO'S that rake in big bucks at the expense of the consumer, and replace them with responsible ones with actual common sense.

So you are right, (sorry for not being very specific) however there are so many ways we could repair our system now. Starting with your ideas.

Any CEO that doesn't act in the best interests of the shareholders is guilty of violating his fiduciary responsibility, which is a crime, IIRC.

I think maybe the time has come to elevate health care at least to the same level as Police and Fire Protection, Education and the Military. Corporations must generate profit for it's shareholders and that's goes right to the heart of the matter. It goes deeper then refusing coverage for preexisting conditions or maximum lifetime payout being exhausted. I can see where companies prefer to minimize there risk if they are responsible. But again, that's part of the problem. I think we have to step back and really look at this objectively, and honestly. Maybe the only way to get the biggest bang for our bucks is look at it on a national level. It's popular to make statements like, "the government can't do anything right," but to be honest, I have yet to not get a bill mailed through the U.S. Post Office. I must admit, "when the IRS said I failed to complete that particular report," they were right. Ask anyone you know on Medicare what they really think about it. I think you will find most will tell you "it's at least as good if not better then the insurance they had prior to Medicare." Also, when is the last time you heard someone complain about their Social Security Check being late or screwed up? I think a lot of people feel there is a fairness issue here too, or feel it is a lack of personal responsibility that causes people to not have insurance. Well, all I can say is, "do away with Police and Fire Protection, Public Schools, and the Military, accept your Personal Responsibility and hire a cop, or fireman, or teacher when you need one, oh yeah, don't forget you might need to get a few soldiers names just in case." Or, face reality and see that maybe we have some pretty good ideas on running big concerns.

Originally Posted by Pflack

I think maybe the time has come to elevate health care at least to the same level as Police and Fire Protection, Education and the Military. Corporations must generate profit for it's shareholders and that's goes right to the heart of the matter. It goes deeper then refusing coverage for preexisting conditions or maximum lifetime payout being exhausted. I can see where companies prefer to minimize there risk if they are responsible. But again, that's part of the problem. I think we have to step back and really look at this objectively, and honestly. Maybe the only way to get the biggest bang for our bucks is look at it on a national level. It's popular to make statements like, "the government can't do anything right," but to be honest, I have yet to not get a bill mailed through the U.S. Post Office. I must admit, "when the IRS said I failed to complete that particular report," they were right. Ask anyone you know on Medicare what they really think about it. I think you will find most will tell you "it's at least as good if not better then the insurance they had prior to Medicare." Also, when is the last time you heard someone complain about their Social Security Check being late or screwed up? I think a lot of people feel there is a fairness issue here too, or feel it is a lack of personal responsibility that causes people to not have insurance. Well, all I can say is, "do away with Police and Fire Protection, Public Schools, and the Military, accept your Personal Responsibility and hire a cop, or fireman, or teacher when you need one, oh yeah, don't forget you might need to get a few soldiers names just in case." Or, face reality and see that maybe we have some pretty good ideas on running big concerns.

That's an awfully simplistic viewpoint. Let me expand upon it for you.
Does anyone expect the Post Office to mail their packages for free?
Do they expect that being poor gives them carte blanche to not have to pay for any goods and services because there will always be others able to pick up their tabs?Do people who have never worked a day in their life get Social Security?
And I'm not sure about where you live, but here in Michigan, we pay state, county and local taxes, including property taxes that cover the costs of Police, Fire and Schools. As for funding the Military, we do that through FIT. So, we are, in essence, hiring a cop, fireman, teacher and soldier as we need them. We just don't hire them directly.

....we shouldn't be looking for ways to live forever. There's no need to save every life there is every time a person gets close to death. You gotta let some people die so there will be enough space for the babies to grow.

Stop trying to live forever.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

....we shouldn't be looking for ways to live forever. There's no need to save every life there is every time a person gets close to death. You gotta let some people die so there will be enough space for the babies to grow.

Stop trying to live forever.

I agree. The day I can't care for myself is, I hope, the last day I spend on this earth.

The last thing we need is 50 million hypochondriacs suddenly finding themselves able to run to the doctor anytime they feel a strange new muscle twinge or start sneezing ten times a day.

Think of how badly such would clog the system. Healthy but panicked people taking up all the available appointment slots would leave the truly sick and needy without a doctor to see for possible months, by which time it might be too late.

It should be up to the states. If a state wants public health care, that would not be illegal unless that state's constitution prohibitted it.
Forcing "ObamaCare" on all states is however unconstitutional.

50 states in competition with each other will ultimately produce a better outcoming than 500 crooks in Congress violating States' Rights.

Originally Posted by 44j

I would like a challenger to debate with me whether we should improve our current system in the united on healthcare or switch to national healthcare.
I am on everyday and would like to be a regular debater.

I think that any government sponsored health care should be the back up system; the vetrans administration, medicare, medicaid, are all government sponsored and do quite well in the over all. No person in the US should be without healthcare. A government system can only apply - market pressure - to the existing system to cause that system to imrpove itself and flush out a new market.

The existing system is a monopoly that has fixed healthcare in this country by gouging and should be overturned.