response 254 of 526:

Mar 2 15:51 UTC 2006

> If you force insurance to cover everything, individual plans will be 
> a lot more expensive.

Isn't that the main argument against national healthcare?

response 256 of 526:

Mar 2 16:21 UTC 2006

National healthcare would tax the rich to keep the poor healthy, so that the
healthy poor can work for the rich better to keep them rich.
It would also avoid a lot of administrative costs, keeping healthcare cheaper
for everyone.

response 258 of 526:

Mar 2 16:49 UTC 2006

I think that National healthcare is probably good for big business. 
Most large companies would LOVE to get rid of that expense. I suspect 
that the Walmarts and the General Motors of the world are already 
lobbying hard for it which means that it might actually come to pass. 

response 260 of 526:

Mar 2 17:21 UTC 2006

National health insurance is a foolproof way to really screw up things 
and make it more expensive, to boot.

On the subject of mandated coverage, those only apply to health plans 
that are not subject to ERISA.  Because ERISA regulates, for example, 
the auto industry health plans, they are exempt from state mandates.

response 262 of 526:

Mar 2 17:43 UTC 2006

I don't think very many fiscal conservatives are in favor of a 
government sponsored national health insurance plan.

response 264 of 526:

Mar 2 17:55 UTC 2006

Oh, oh.  Where do you get your information?  Here's a little dittie on 
how the government typically wildly underestimates the cost of health 
care programs.  Have fun.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/7/4/61.pdf#search='Medicare
%20ESRD%20cost%20estimate'

response 266 of 526:

Mar 2 18:14 UTC 2006

I think national healthcare would increase malpractice by 100 fold and people
would be less likely to seek preventative healthcare.  Do you really want the
government running healthcare? Look at how bad the VA is screwed up.

response 268 of 526:

Mar 2 18:28 UTC 2006

Re: #267. You really think he cares? He's one of those people (=most people)
who won't care until it happens to them. THEN he'll care...

 Imagine doctors with governmental immunity. FTCA offers a lot of
 protection to governmental workers.

I can't speak for how other countries with nationalised healthcare work, but
in the UK there's no such thing as "governmental immunity" for doctors.

response 270 of 526:

Mar 2 18:33 UTC 2006

For years and years I have posted about how I thought national, 
government-sponsored health care would ensure that no one could get 
good health coverage.  I've posted about how I think it would reduce 
the level of health care for those who currently have health insurance, 
but not increase it a whole lot for anyone currently outside the system.

I've had great misgivings about how the government is going to take 
control, pay for it all for everyone, ensure good care, control costs, 
ensure continued medical research, and do it in a fair manner.  
Currently, at least some can hope to buy coverage or get it from their 
employer.  It seems to me even *that* chance would end if the 
government takes over.  We would instead wind up with an irreversible 
problem resembling Social Security.

Instead of economic favoritism where some get better medical service 
than others, we would instead be subject to political favoritism.  I 
don't see that as being an improvement.

I voted against Bill Clinton because of his national health plan, and 
when he won his first election, I was surprised and massively gratified 
to see his plan fall apart.

It's not that I've ever seen our current system as being good.   It has 
a lot of faults.  It leaves a lot of people outside of getting medical 
attention.  My wife didn't have any coverage before I married her, and 
her kids were on Medicaid.  I'm pretty aware of what that was like for 
her.

It still seems better than what I'd expect would come of any of the 
plans that have been put forward to replace it with a government 
initiative.  I envision a national version of Medicaid, covering 
everyone.  Medicaid is *awful*.

response 272 of 526:

Mar 2 18:44 UTC 2006

I'm assuming the first part of 268 was referring to 265, and not 267? :)

> I can't speak for how other countries with nationalised healthcare 
> work, but in the UK there's no such thing as "governmental immunity" 
> for doctors.

It really depends on how we are going to implement it. It would be one 
thing if the government just foot the bill, but that is likely not to 
happen. You see, the United States already has a national healthcare 
system, but it is for former military personnel. Tod mentioned it in 
266, its called the VA. It is highly bureaucratic, and gets often gets 
drawn into politics.

I don't think the US could afford to build a system like the VA that 
could treat everybody. So what then? Do we claim eminent domain and 
yank public hospitals into a Federal health system? That'll go over 
real well. 

IMHO, the best thing the government can do right now is (1) make health 
care more affordable by putting an end to frivolous malpractice 
lawsuits/extortion, (2) provide a high-deductible health insurance plan 
for everyone, and (3) maintain a medicare/medicaid system for poor 
people.

response 274 of 526:

Mar 2 18:52 UTC 2006

I'm assuming the first part of 268 was referring to 265, and not 267? :)

Correct. My mistake.

if the government just foot the bill, 

I'm curious: How do you tax-haters think the government would pay for things
if there were no taxes?

 You see, the United States already has a national healthcare
 system, but it is for former military personnel. Tod mentioned it in
 266, its called the VA. It is highly bureaucratic, and gets often gets
 drawn into politics.

I'm yet to be convinced that the market works well enough to render the
alternative of bureaucracy undesirable. It certainly doesn't work well enough
when it's weighted in favour of big enterprise rather than market forces, as
it is in the US and UK.

I don't think the US could afford to build a system like the VA that
 could treat everybody. So what then? Do we claim eminent domain and
 yank public hospitals into a Federal health system? That'll go over
 real well.

Why not? The UK can afford it.

IMHO, the best thing the government can do right now is (1) make health
 care more affordable by putting an end to frivolous malpractice
 lawsuits/extortion, (2) provide a high-deductible health insurance plan
 for everyone, and (3) maintain a medicare/medicaid system for poor
 people.

One of the things the US and UK governments have historically been worst at
is making sure free markets work properly; see my comments in paragraph 2.

response 276 of 526:

Mar 2 19:34 UTC 2006

Thursday, March 2, 2006; Posted: 11:36 a.m. EST (16:36 GMT) 
NAPLES, Florida (AP) -- If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his
way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict
Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or
birth control.

The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and
calls it "God's will."

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to
sue.

The town of Ave Maria is being constructed around Ave Maria University, the
first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years.
Both are set to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples in southwestern
Florida.

The town and the university, developed in partnership with the Barron Collier
Co., an agricultural and real estate business, will be set on 5,000 acres with
a European-inspired town center, a massive church and what planners call the
largest crucifix in the nation, at nearly 65 feet tall. Monaghan envisions
11,000 homes and 20,000 residents.

During a speech last year at a Catholic men's gathering in Boston, Monaghan
said that in his community, stores will not sell pornographic magazines,
pharmacies will not carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television
will have no X-rated channels.

Homebuyers in Ave Maria will own their property outright. But Monaghan and
Barron Collier will control all commercial real estate in the town, meaning
they could insert provisions in leases to restrict the sale of certain items.

"I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I
don't want to be on the sidelines," Monaghan, who sold Domino's Pizza in 1998
to devote himself to doing good works, said in a recent Newsweek interview.

Robert Falls, a spokesman for the project, said Tuesday that attorneys are
still reviewing the legal issues and that Monaghan had no comment in the
meantime.

"If they attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of Naples
and Collier County, Florida, are in for a whole series of legal and
constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the future,"
warned Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Florida.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist said it will be up to the courts to
decide the legalities of the plan. "The community has the right to provide
a wholesome environment," he said. "If someone disagrees, they have the right
to go to court and present facts before a judge."

Gov. Jeb Bush, at the site's groundbreaking earlier this month, lauded the
development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create
a community of like-minded citizens. Bush, a convert to Catholicism, did not
speak specifically to the proposed restrictions.

"While the governor does not personally believe in abortion or pornography,
the town, and any restrictions they may place on businesses choosing to locate
there, must comply with the laws and constitution of the state and federal
governments," Russell Schweiss, a spokesman for the governor, said Tuesday.

Frances Kissling, president of the liberal Washington-based Catholics for a
Free Choice, likened Monaghan's concept to Islamic fundamentalism.

"This is un-American," Kissling said. "I don't think in a democratic society
you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of
public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of
citizens."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/02/catholic.town.ap