>>> “First of all, it is not really a free-market banking system if the government is dictating how this industry conducts its business and also guarantees to bail them out of the failure of that business.”

You are correct, but all of the fat cats that are being bailed out would disagree with you. They like it just fine. Privatized gains and socialized losses.

But as well, I do not support the free market system as it was. I prefer a regulated free market. I think the airlines would agree with that right about now.

>>> “Guaranteeing payment regardless of performance will always bring sub-standard performance.”

Absolutely correct. And that works not only with capitalists but also politicians. I’d prefer putting them on a sliding scale salary based on how well they run the country. But I’d first double their salary and eliminate the tips (campaign contributions).

>>> “There should be consequences for those who don’t take their responsibility seriously. It is a powerful motivator.”

Ah, like politicians and CEOs who take their responsibility seriously. I understand (facetious, I know, but I had to throw that in there.)

But as to health care, we could spend twice the money making people jump through all the hoops to be responsible, or, what does the original post say? “Let’s do the right thing.”

I have a granddaughter that was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 2 years old. That, even after taking her “responsibility seriously.” Her mother took the right steps in the beginning, with a high deductible health plan. Too bad genetics got in the way. She’s now stuck with expenses that she can’t handle.

Under a Medicare-for-all plan you can buy uncovered services out of the plan and pay for them yourself. The free-market way. With cash. I know of no mandatory vaccines, but if there were and you opted out, that’d likely result in more free-market decisions. What can I say? Life is great that way.

I don’t see unreasonable caps coming, but again, we’d be talking about free market decisions on your part. Perhaps even a new market for Gap coverage of uncovered services. But basic care would be provided. No cosmetic surgery. No male enhancements. No crap.

>>> “You will have politicians making decisions on everyone’s health care based on what will get them re-elected or what will get them the most special interest contributions, etc.”

Not with public funding of campaigns. See http://www.wiCleanElections.org

Jack

But these are the same guys who supported the capitalistic, free market banking and credit industry and are now crying for a government bailout.

They are being more ideological than pragmatic, or just haven’t thought this through.

First of all, it is not really a free-market banking system if the government is dictating how this industry conducts its business and also guarantees to bail them out of the failure of that business. Guaranteeing payment regardless of performance will always bring sub-standard performance.

But that's not why I zero'd in on this quote. The point I wanted to make is you come here with these simplistic answers to a huge problem without addressing anyone's concerns; but then suggest that others haven't "thought it through" and are ideologically driven. Too quote my kindergarten nemesis, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Now, with that said, please try to engage my points and or questions rather than referring to your page where you think you have it all figured out & you just need to get us non-thinkers over there to read it.

You say that "We could provide Medicare to 100% of our citizens for the same….". As if all of us are already agree that it is prudent to provide 100% of the population with free health care. Sure, I think it would be nice if everyone could go to the doctor when they're sick. But it is not practical; because some people will not work to help themselves, which means others will have to pay for them. I think having to provide for yourself & your family promotes responsibility. There should be consequences for those who don't take their responsibility seriously. It is a powerful motivator.

Other issues I have with socialized medicine is it will mean people will not be able to opt-out if they decide they want a different course or treatment being offered by the only gig in town. For example, they will not be able to opt out of controversial vaccines lest the government refuse them treatment. Also, I'm sure the health care will have a cap. I mean, there will be a budget of course so now government will get to decide who get's treated, 1st and/or most aggressively and which ailments will get treated & which ones won't. I'm sure you are aware of the disproportionate amount of tax money that has gone to AIDS patients versus the amount that has gone to say, cancer patients or heart disease patients. The later killing far more. So, just like that, you will have the special interest groups lobbying to get more coverage for their particular ailments. And despite how much the pols all decry those evil lobbyists….they keep getting caught with them with their pants down. You will have politicians making decisions on everyone's health care based on what will get them re-elected or what will get them the most special interest contributions, etc.

For more details see: http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/medicare-…

I agree that FEMA is bad and should be subcontracted to private charities. And maybe the Army Corp of Engineers too. But the government has already done that with Medicare, by contracting to local private physicians, and it works great. Though not perfect it is a hell of a lot better than private health care. I’ve been to both.

And cheesestick, those comments address your concerns too. I am retired, a former CEO in the healthcare field, and I found Medicare easier to deal with than private insurers (though not as generous).

Jack

You have a hang-up on “free health care”. No health care system is free

Um, yes, that was the point I was making with the housing example….

That bugs you. But the bottom line is that paying by taxes rather than the other is the most efficient for all concerned.

Because every time the government takes something over, it automatically becomes more efficient??

(Never mind the privacy issues of having the government all up in our business like that….I'll save that for another time.)

Do you really think that the government is the most efficient provider of services? Medical or otherwise? They screw up everything they touch! Did you read the news recently about the Senate voting to privatize their cafeteria?

Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money — more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

I'd rather get sick and die than have these people take over my health care or any other aspect of my life for that matter.

Jack, paying anything by paying taxes is not the most efficient.

Consider, if you paid your insurance premiums directly to your insurer, the money goes from you to the insurer.

Now, if the government paid your premiums from your taxes, the money goes from you to the IRS to whatever agency handles the insurance payment to your insurance company. That's four times the "handling", which means at least four time the cost, since someone has to be paid to handle your money in and out of two separate government agencies (assuming the flow of money is that straightforward).

My "hang-up" comes from the very simple fact that government is inherently inefficient.

That bugs you. But the bottom line is that paying by taxes rather than the other is the most efficient for all concerned. Except for the insurance companies who like things just as they are.

See: http://moneyedpoliticians.wordpress.com/medicare-…

Jack Lohman
http://moneyedpoliticians.net

But what we have is government stepping into every aspect of our lives. Not just of the criminals, but of the law abiding citizens as well. And they are deciding who gets taxed the most & which favored "poor" group receives this charity money. If the government decides that people who don't work (or have limited income) are going to live in nice houses and drive new, more fuel efficient cars, and get free health care, and go to college….well? These things aren't free? Low-costing housing isn't really cheaper than regular housing. So when the govt. decides they are going to grant low-cost housing to poor people…who do you think pays the difference between what the houses actually cost & what the poor people pay for them?

I don't think that's the case, cheesestick. But they DO believe that the rich CEOs who have found a legal way to get into their pocket and family resources should not be rewarded for their creativeness.

Neither extreme is good. Not total socialism and not total free market. You can see how the free market is working in Somalia. No government, just guns. We've been there already and we don't want to go back.

Jack Lohman
http://moneyedpoliticians.net