"The goal should be to deliver quality health care to all of our citizens in the most efficient manner." Sean
What do you think? "Should" this be our goal? If not, what should it be?
It seems a bit socialistic for my taste, however I am curious how others perceive this.
17 comments:
I guess I don't see what's controversial or "socialistic" about it.
Don't we want everyone to receive good health care and don't we want to do it without wasting resources?
It seems to me that where you dive into the "socialism" debate is on how you accomplish that goal.
The challenge I have is that I want people to earn their good healthcare, not just have it provided to them all because they are citizens of America.
The reality is that most people appreciate, value and care for things more if they are earned.
Wiki Ultimate Gift
Life's Greatest Lessons
I am concerned that a lot of good intentions could lead to a very bad place... Pelosi Fair and Balanced
Will the policy promote dependence or independence? Dependency is bad for the self esteem of the people and bad for the productivity / competitiveness of the country.
Pelosi in Mississippi
Pelosi in NY
There are many hard working people gainfully employed who lacked access to quality affordable healthcare prior to ACA.
Our economy does not provide full employment at a livable wage with healthcare benefits. That is why we need the ACA.
I really don't understand how conservatives are the least concerned about the welfare of their fellow citizens (neighbors).
Reminder: Conservatives give more to charities than Liberals.
Also, the blog is give 2 attain. Not take and redistribute to attain.
WHOSE goal? That is the question. And what is the balance between cost, quality and availability?
"our economy" is based on everybody working and contributing to it, and then taking some share out of it for the things they want. It's the free market that provides the greatest good for the greatest number, even though that means some folks get less.
I don't accept the Conservatives give more to charities than Liberal argument. I thought I had already persuaded you that religious clubs, AKA churches, don't really count as charitable giving for the benefit of the less fortunate. My church has over a million dollar budget to program for the benefit of members and raises about an additional $100,000 for the benefit of charitable organizations.
Also, charitable giving for healthcare, food, and shelter is no where near adequate to the needs of our citizens. Charitable giving is at best a supplement to govt programs.
Your topic should focus more on how to better ration healthcare.
Food for the body vs Food for the soul... I think our church's budget is ~50% internal and 50% social outreach... However they also arrange a great many volunteer activities for the community and partner churches.
More importantly, we get preached to often about the importance of giving beyond the church. Maybe you should join one of our traditional Christian churches... ~2% of my income goes to the church and about ~4% to the community.
If you disagree with using "wealth / effort" as a good rationing technique, what would you recommend? Are we back to everyone should be treated equal even though ~60% us will be paying for 100% of the service? And 10% will be laughing at us from the welfare office?
What other options do you see?
The original post asked what the goal of American healthcare was.
I'm still the only one who has addressed that topic. John and Jerry are bloviating about redistribution without articulating what their goal is.
What is wrong with my goal? Do you want people to receive substandard health care? Do you only want certain people to receive health care? Do you prefer to spend health care dollars inefficiently?
"Do you want people to receive substandard health care? Do you only want certain people to receive health care?"
Kind of...
I want hard working folks who are striving hard to make themselves and the USA better to have good healthcare, food, housing, etc.(ie group 1)
I want free loading people (group 2)to be uncomfortable enough so they see the error of their ways and join group 1. (ie "urgency" drives change)
Giving group 2 healthcare, food housing, etc does nothing but encourage them to ask for more. So I guess I am okay with giving those folks sub-standard or no healthcare... If they pass away, the law of evolution would hopefully reduce the size and propagation of group 2.
The challenge of course is how does one give group 1 a hand up without giving group 2 a handout?
So you can see that I really had not left the topic.
The reality, John, is the Group 2 is very, very small. So let's get work on getting people health care, instead of droning on and on about something that ain't really a problem.
I think that is where we have a difference of opinion.
What percentage do you consider very very small?
Remember I consider all the folks like those from the Pelosi video and those who commit crimes to fit into that category. (ie fraud, identitiy theft, thieves, drug dealers, child support avoiders, gang members, etc) To me these folks cost our society much more than they benefit it.
And I don't we want to subsidize their life style...
I really meant... And I don't think we want to subsidize their life style.
Sean,
What is very very small? And I should probably include the addicted folks who seem uninterested in kicking the habit. Thoughts?
Anyone else have thoughts regarding what % of the Americn population are happy to live off the efforts of others? 1%, 5%, 10%, more?
I think John and Sean are both right. The number who WANT to freeload is small-- maybe 5%. The rest--another 20% or so-- do it because they are caught in the welfare trap or told that they are "entitled" to idle luxury at the expense of hardworking chumps like the rest of us.
"Let us work on getting people health care," Sean says. I say, let people get their own! I don't owe them anything, unless they work for me. If "free" health care were not available, along with free food and shelter and spending money, why would ANYBODY get up off their fat arse and go to work? My preference is to have government get out of the way of the free market and quit "providing" all of this stuff, and interfering with the ability of people to get ahead in the economy, and deal with that new equilibrium where a LOT fewer people "need health care and can't afford it." THAT population is the one that would be "very very small."
The goal of American health care should be to have agreement between the consumers and providers of the goods and services that make up "health care" as to quantity, availability, quality and price, on an individual basis.
And again, health insurance is not health care, so Obamacare is irrelevant to the health care system except, as with most government programs, to make matters worse.
Post a Comment