Here is the transcript from a Facebook conversation I had with a more Liberal member of my family and that persons friends.  I’m of course ‘ME’.  The relative is ‘Person 1′.  Her friends are Persons 3, 4 & 5.

Tell me, do you think I did a good job??  I never trust myself when during an argument with liberals.

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } –>

Person 1

No one should suffer or die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick or injured. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

5 hours ago · Comment · Like / Unlike

Person 1

I have a great deal of interest in this. Last year I was uninsured and had to have my appendix out. The rough total in bills was over $30,000. More than my undergraduate 5 years cost. I was fortunately able to get assistance (through government requirements for hospitals to do x-amount of charity work in return for federal funding)for most of it but am still paying on it.

I experienced the socialized medicine concept while in Australia and can only urge people to become more educated on what it means and how it works because it is vastly superior to what we currently have and is a major reason for my decision to become an ex-pat (well dual-cit) after my PhD

5 hours ago

Person 1

major reason after Peter that is

5 hours ago

ME

So, if socialized medicine works so well, why do people from those countries come here to get medical attention?

5 hours ago · Delete

Person 3

Because we have the best technologies available.

5 hours ago

ME

no, it is because they are overworked and understaffed with everyone else’s sickness. It isn’t a good program. Also, your put on a long waiting list when you need procedures, and you have to hope you don’t die first before they get to you, if they ever do.

5 hours ago · Delete

Person 1

People from what countries? I don’t agree that it is because we have the best technologies and many people from the US go to other countries because it is cheaper. Some people do come here for a specialist or specialized treatments that we may have better state of the art in but generally they are coming from developing counties. Rarely do here of people from well developed (comparable to the US) coming here for treatments unless they are seeking a specialist. It is also common for people from the US to travel to other countries for a specialist there and many times specialist will travel in order to treat people. I think that people in the US have a gut over-reaction to the term socialized because they confuse it communistic and there is a lingering prejudice to both terms arising from the cold war (and others). Most of the arguments presented (such as Tony’s) arise from a lack of education and a lack of willingness to expand their previous beliefs.

5 hours ago

Person 1

Instead they use general and unsupported arguments and statements

5 hours ago

Person 1

As far as waitlists go that happens here as well and in most socialized structures the list are prioritized given the urgency of the patient. Our system has hospitals that are understaffed and overworked as well so again this is a blind reaction without support.

5 hours ago

Person 3

In my technology comment, I meant that people from countries without the comparable technologies or without specialists of equal caliber. I think many people think of the ad on Fox with the Canadian woman with the brain “tumor.” Look deeper into that. It’s a lie. She had a brain CYST that was not going to kill her, and Canada told her to wait 6 months to have it removed. Instead, she went to the Mayo Clinic and had it removed immediately. Her government reimbursed her. I have private insurance in the US and I have to wait 6-7 months to get an appointment at the dentist, and I have to make my OB appointments 2 months in advance.

4 hours ago

Person 4

All they’re talking about is a public _option_ anyway. If I lose my job, God forbid get some catastrophic illness, or decide to take one of the many contract positions without benefits in my field and can’t afford comprehensive coverage, I’d rather have delayed care than none at all.

4 hours ago

ME

So, in Scotland where a government flunky has decided that you can’t get x-ray’s of your back even if you want to pay for it yourself is good?? So, the new incoming Canadian health minister saying their system is in ruin and basically needs to be overhauled completely is good? And that’s one of the systems that everyone points to as being great?? So, Canadian health officials FINALLY acknowledging their system is not working and so they HAVE to allow private practice doctors and clinics again is BAD? Besides, do you think honestly the way to fix this is to sink us even further in debt? The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill as stands and it’s going to add TRILLIONS to our debt over the next decade. Do we really need to add MORE government red tape to our current system? IF all they really want is more competition (as I heard some senator comment this morning) then all they have to do is allow the insurance companies to compete across state lines.

4 hours ago · Delete

ME

So Canadian people having to pay out of pocket for Angioplasty’s in Detroit is good? Or is it right for the best breast cancer treatment drug available to be withheld from women in England because a government flunky thinks it’s not worth the cost?

A public option would be a government run healthcare plan.

there is no competition when the government is involved. Why?

Because of two reasons:

1. The government operates on tax dollars.

2. The government writes the rules.

When the government uses tax dollars to fund its competition in the marketplace it is not the same as a company raising private capital. Government bureaucrats lack responsibility and accountability to taxpayers in a way a company does not with shareholders, debt holders, and consumers.

4 hours ago · Delete

ME

The end in a nutshell…Most everything the govt takes on, fails miserably. Why would we want them to take over health care too?

4 hours ago · Delete

Person 5

https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/content/NCBD/Chartbook/2008_CAHPS_HealthPlanChartbook.pdf

Start on page 8 for the graphs. Folks with Medicare are more satisfied, across the board, with their quality of health care than those with private health insurance.

3 hours ago

Person 4

I don’t understand…Medicare operates on tax dollars, and how is Medicare a failure? Medicare has held costs down, which is what doctors have been complaining about. And speaking of Medicare and medicaid… why do old people and children and people on welfare who are not contributing to society deserve guaranteed care and I as a middle class person making the wheels of the economy go round do not?

3 hours ago

Person 4

So in summary, we have:

(1) medicare (a government-run program) keeps costs down

(2) people on medicare are satisfied w/ their coverage

(3) people on medicare have guaranteed health coverage. the rest of us poor schmoes do not.

I get the whole “keep the government out of our lives” thing. I’m all for that. But I’m also a pragmatist. If it works, keep it, if it doesn’t, find something better. That’s the American way, after all. If Medicare is working for people and my private health coverage is not working for me, I want in on the service that I’m paying my valuable tax dollars for other people to have.

3 hours ago

ME

medicare is bankrupt! the only reason it is kept afloat is by borrowing from other sources. The same way the govt healthcare would be run. Not a good system.

2 hours ago · Delete

Person 4

Wait…what does it actually mean for a government program to be bankrupt? That it’s spending more money than it takes in? Why does that mean the program is poorly administrated? Considering healthcare spending has risen faster than wages (and taxes), isn’t it only natural that Medicare would run out of money? And since it doesn’t have enough money, doesn’t that mean that Uncle Sam is just going to hit me up for more money to cover my grandmother who just sits in her house watching TV and reading tabloids all day while denying working people access to affordable care?

2 hours ago

ME

what bankrupt means in this sense is that the gov’t doesn’t have the money to fund it, so they borrow it. Either from other budget items, or from other countries. I am not against health care reform, but I think bankrupting our future is not the way to go about it. Plus, I am not a fan of a system that doesn’t even pay for morphine for a dying patient so that they can die pain free. Yes, this is true… Also, your grandmother paid her dues…It is about time to take care of her, don’t you think? Why shouldn’t we take care of the people who put in their time? What I would have issue with is welfare recipients who sit on their fanny watching tv all day and reading tabloids when they can perfectly well work, but choose not to, not my grandmother.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

Also, why are they trying to RAM the changes for health care reform down our throats without a logical debate on the matter and without even people in Congress really knowing what they are voting for. If it doesn’t get enacted until 2013 like they say (if we can believe them) then why push it through before the August recess or the Thanksgiving break or NOW Christmas. BECAUSE that’s how Chicago politics works. Shove something through that isn’t really done so that you can make whatever changes you want later without oversight because it’s controlled by some government CZAR.

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 4

Well, don’t welfare recipients receive medicaid?

And I wouldn’t assume all old people paid their dues…I know plenty that did not.

about an hour ago

ME

not all welfare people get medicaid. but we are talking about medicare, not medicaid. Two different systems. Also, its not a very good system either. Also, old people not paying their dues? Didn’t they pay taxes all of their lives??

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 4

On one hand, I do agree that something as important and expensive as this should be debated really thoroughly. On the other hand, I kind of feel like it has been debated for decades, and there has been no progress.

about an hour ago

ME

What they are trying to put through has not been debated. They took Hillary care and pieced and parted a bill that does nothing but give govt more say and control in my life, and I take offense to that. I do not ever want any govt official to determine whether or not I deserve to live or die, based on my age or productivity. My life is far more valuable than that, but if they get control, that is EXACTLY what they will do. If things got too expensive, they would have to cut something, and the only thing they are spending money on would be care for the sick. So, someone who is sick wouldn’t get what they need. Govt works for us, not us for them. They have it backwards now.

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 4

Yes, I know that they are different systems, and I know what “bankrupt” means. I just asked and mentioned those things for the sake of the argument. My point is simply that people who are not working are guaranteed care, and I am not. And no, I do not assume that all old people paid taxes their whole lives and paid their dues. That is simply not the case.

about an hour ago

Person 4

Is that really true? Medicare is paying for 80 year old women with alzheimers to get pap smears to screen for cervical cancer. Would they really decide that your life is less important?

about an hour ago

ME

Oh, come on! Like they are illegal immigrants or something? They have bought and sold things all their lives. Paid taxes on them. The majority of elderly people have a better moral stance than our generation. They didn’t try to shirk their duties like we do. They worked hard, and paid for houses, and schools, and taxes. Maybe there were a few freeloaders, but really…our generation is producing the slackers and career welfare recipients.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

If they (govt) determined that I did not need a medical treatment, thus putting my life in danger, I could not go get it myself. Why does that make any sense to the supporters of this stupid thing? Are you honestly okay with not being able to make your own decision and pay for something yourself if you aren’t allowed it on the govt plan? Isn’t that totally going over your head? If the waiting list is too high, or the budget cuts have caused them to pick and choose, and there aren’t enough doctors to do anything anymore because they have left medicine due to this stupid plan, then how might I not die because of their decision?

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 1

Erin does have a point in relation to Grandmothers. Many women of older generations did not work therefore they did not pay taxes or social security. Their husbands wages were taxed but not at a rate high enough to cover the care of two people. They may have bought and sold things but not all states (Oregon for example) have sales tax. Sales tax is also a state level tax not federal and would not generate enough tax revenue for one person without additional income taxes to pay for services (schools, roads, healthcare etc) used by the non wage earning person. Even now many people do not work since one of them stays at home with the kids and so they are not paying tax either.

about an hour ago

Person 1

You could always get supplemental insurance to cover it, get full private insurance and not use the government plan or decide to pay for it yourself. Having many things covered by a government plan is better than no coverage at all. No one has said that you wont be able to keep or take out a private plan if you can afford it. If you can’t then it’s better than nothing. I learned this as you see if you read my first post.

about an hour ago

ME

My wife stays home, but we still pay very high property tax, and all the children’s food come with a nice hefty almost 9 percent sales tax. Oh, to live in a state without it. Except the cost of living in states without it are higher, so it all evens out. Everything, cars/houses/wages are taxed. So, unless your a criminal who gets paid under the table or an illegal who doesn’t put into the system any, your all contributing to it somehow.

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 1

I believe I did say that there were some taxes paid by said nonworking person however, it’s not enough to pay for all the services they use and the taxes paid by the spouse from their wages will not cover the care of two people.

about an hour ago

ME

You honestly believe a govt takeover of the health insurance would be happy to share with the private insurance sector? They are greedy pigs. They don’t want to share. They will make it near impossible to get private insurance. Plus, then the companies who offer private insurance will be forced to raise their rates, because so many would go for this govt run debacle. The average person couldn’t afford private then, could they? It would still be a forced thing and it won’t work. What they need to do is institue a lower medical cost somehow. Stop the sue happy people, and lower the dr’s and hospitals salaries a bit. You know, cap it somehow so they aren’t rolling in the dough.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

The rich people pay far more taxes than us…is that any more fair? I like the FairTax idea.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

Plus, my daughter is severely disabled. Should I be thinking that she is a drain on society because she will be sitting in her wheelchair, not working? Not contributing?

about an hour ago · Delete

Person 1

Read up the Australian system. The have the exact combination that I spoke of. There is government, socialized, med and you can also take out partial or complete private insurance to either supplement or replace the government plan. They also regulate more closely medical costs and fees. It works there. Not to say perfectly but it is a far far better system than we have. I’m sure there are more examples in other countries but is the only other system I personally have experience with it.

This isn’t a fairness of tax conversation so I am not responding to the last comment.

about an hour ago

ME

Well, we brought it up because your friend made the comment about her grandmother, and taxes etc. But I will stick to the topic at hand LOL!

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

If the govt had their way, they would put bugs in our homes to listen to our conversations, force all of our kids to take part in govt schools that indoctrinate bad morals, tell us what to do and when to do it. I do not need that. If they truly cared about my well being and not their pocketbooks, I might be a little more open. The American govt isn’t.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

Found on a site about Australia….The private health insurance sector is one of the most regulated sectors in Australia. The Private Health Insurance Incentives Scheme, along with community rating, is intended to make private insurance equitable, profitable and popular. We argue that the subsidy to health insurance ought to be a very effective tool for increasing insurance – but it was ineffective because community rating was ineffective. Using data from the Household Expenditure Survey we find that despite community rating rules which prohibit age-adjusted premiums, young adults paid considerably less for their insurance than older adults.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

We conclude that insurers circumvented community rating through plan design, screening older consumers into more expensive plans. We also find that the penalty of 2 per cent per year for delaying insurance, introduced as part of the lifetime cover plan, is too low to be effective. We reflect on the New Zealand experience, where a completely deregulated insurance industry continues to be profitable and enjoys similar rates of coverage to those of Australia, and we ask whether Australia too could not benefit from complete deregulation.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

so, obviously not wonderful.

about an hour ago · Delete

ME

OH, and just a story for you. My daughter has braces on her teeth. We shopped around and paid cash. $3000. We got in within a week got casts and started treatment within another 2 weeks. A friend of ours has ******** (*State* Medicare). She had to wait several months to get her casts done, then they are sent to some committee that looks at them and determines if she is of age and if her teeth really need the treatment. Then if they approve, it’s another 6 months from the approval date to get into the Ortho. AND, because of redtape of government, they charge the government between $5000 and $6000 for all of this. Private Health Insurance companies are also charged close to the same amount because of their amount of paperwork to comply with… FEDERAL regulations… Government causing costs to go higher. Ask the growing number of doctors that are DROPPING medicare patients because of the extra costs.

29 minutes ago · Delete

ME

I went in for my injured shoulder to an Orthopedic surgeon here in *Town Name*. I got a 50% discount off the NORMAL rate. ON THE SPOT. All because I paid cash. THAT’s health care. I’m not rich. But I realize that if I save my money back instead of paying for Health Insurance I actually save money in the end. I do plan on getting catastrophic health insurance soon though, because that is where it is really needed, not on small stuff. Health Savings Accounts, Tort Reform and allowing REAL competition in the Insurance industry as well as cutting out so much of the red tape that Doctors, Hospitals and Insurance companies have to deal with already will naturally bring costs down. As for right now the House bill H.R. 3200 actually states that if I don’t want Health Insurance, I have to pay 2.5% of my income in a penalty. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has a right to MAKE me get Health Insurance or penalize me if I don’t.

22 minutes ago · Delete

Person 4

33 seconds ago

2 seconds ago · Delete

2 seconds ago · Delete