Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Runtu]

If I had a choice here, I would be more than happy to pay into a system where everyone can have an opportunity to get the treatment they need, without having to worry that they might have to sell everything they have worked hard for, or even what they don't have. Having a government managed system where the pharmaceutical and medical care providers are regulated, and the profiting on the backs of sickness is limited.

On the face of it, our private healthcare system exists to make money. That is not in dispute. It's how the money is made that causes the problems. Theoretically, the healthcare industry should be all about preventive care and encouraging healthier lifestyles so that people are less likely to develop chronic, expensive conditions that drain funds from the company. In short, it's in their best interest to have healthier customers, which saves the company a lot in payouts. Some insurance companies do that, but more often, they save the payouts by simply denying coverage.

The other half of the equation is that there are millions of people who are not insured. When they get sick and can't pay for it, hospitals are legally required to stabilize them and treat emergency conditions. Who do you think pays for the uninsured? That's right: all of us. The government reimburses the hospitals for some of the expense, but mostly they account for these expenses in their billing structure, so the insured pay higher premiums, and all of us pay higher taxes to cover these expenses.

[_Melchett]

On the face of it, our private healthcare system exists to make money. That is not in dispute. It's how the money is made that causes the problems. Theoretically, the healthcare industry should be all about preventive care and encouraging healthier lifestyles so that people are less likely to develop chronic, expensive conditions that drain funds from the company. In short, it's in their best interest to have healthier customers, which saves the company a lot in payouts. Some insurance companies do that, but more often, they save the payouts by simply denying coverage.

That's true. The amount spent on treating people who are suffering conditions relating to lifestyle could be avoided by the use of education and preventative care.

The other half of the equation is that there are millions of people who are not insured. When they get sick and can't pay for it, hospitals are legally required to stabilize them and treat emergency conditions. Who do you think pays for the uninsured? That's right: all of us. The government reimburses the hospitals for some of the expense, but mostly they account for these expenses in their billing structure, so the insured pay higher premiums, and all of us pay higher taxes to cover these expenses.

It would be common sense that it would be better having all insurance covered by using a national system that everyone contributes to. Sure, the insurance companies would lose out, but I would be sure that some sort of public/private relationship could be worked out. A national safety net, as it were.

by the way, all the best with your business. The government should help in the start-up of businesses like yours. They are helping themselves by creating income in the form of taxes, and also helping to get the unemployed back into work. This also stimulates the economy (both local and national), and encourages innovation and progress.

[_Runtu]

by the way, all the best with your business. The government should help in the start-up of businesses like yours. They are helping themselves by creating income in the form of taxes, and also helping to get the unemployed back into work. This also stimulates the economy (both local and national), and encourages innovation and progress.

We're doing very well. As I mentioned, two huge multinational corporations now own us as a joint venture. So, even though there about 250 of us here in Provo, the two companies combined have about 120,000 employees. I'm quite sure both companies are glad the government stepped in when they weren't willing to do so.

No one else in the world does what we do, so these are new jobs in every sense of the word, and they are American jobs, both in technology and manufacturing. I suspect that, had the government not given the seed money, this technology would not exist, and the companies who had tried and failed would have given up by now.

[_asbestosman]

2. If the stuff you make was economically viable in the first place, why did you need government subsidy to enter into its production? Why weren't private investors interested in your ideas?

Free economics lesson for you Droopy. One of the times when free markets fail is when there are significant barriers to entry. One such barrier is capital. While it's true that venture capitalists will sometimes provide this money, that is not always the case. Investing is a risky business, especially when you have a couple of other big companies trying to develop the same product. Furthermore, capital markets favor short-term results instead of long-term risks. In this instance, it was the government which acted as a sort of venture capitalist via the DOE. Many successful companies actually exist only because of government protection / intervention early in their life. I highly recommend that you read the book, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. You might be surprised at all the successful world-renowned corporations that started out with Leftist governmental help for example: Toyota and Samsung.

[_Chap]

by the way, all the best with your business. The government should help in the start-up of businesses like yours. They are helping themselves by creating income in the form of taxes, and also helping to get the unemployed back into work. This also stimulates the economy (both local and national), and encourages innovation and progress.

We're doing very well. As I mentioned, two huge multinational corporations now own us as a joint venture. So, even though there about 250 of us here in Provo, the two companies combined have about 120,000 employees. I'm quite sure both companies are glad the government stepped in when they weren't willing to do so.

No one else in the world does what we do, so these are new jobs in every sense of the word, and they are American jobs, both in technology and manufacturing. I suspect that, had the government not given the seed money, this technology would not exist, and the companies who had tried and failed would have given up by now.

No. In the end your company must fail because its start-up was contrary to the Gospel. It's a house built on sand.

Those people now working for it would have been far, far better off it they had never been hired by a firm that is following Satan's principles, not God's. So long as they were tithe payers, they could have relied on Postum and pasta from the bishop's storehouse until a proper job turned up, like paid janitor in a Ward House ... um, well ...

[_Themis]

Is it? I'd like you to clarify this a bit. Does the state represent the people, or is the state a representation of the people?

To break it down even further, do the representatives of the people (congresspeople and Senators) represent the people, or does "the government" represent the people. I say this because "the government" is much more complex and a far vaster entity than just the two houses of congress, or a parliament, encompassing numerous administrative agencies, bureaucracies, organizations, and external agencies (like 501c3s, special interest lobby groups, NGOs etc.) deeply intertwined with government, that all affect the manner in which, and if, "the people" are actually represented within that governmental structure.

I'm not suggesting the system is perfect and free from corruption. It's why campaign reform is desperately needed to help the situation.

How do you determine whether the state is paying for things the people need and want, or things the state needs and wants, or desires the people to come to believe they need and want?

The same way everyone else does, and sure there are different opinions on the matter. Welcome to democracy.

No, many patently do not. All I need do here is point you to Melchett's claim, previously, the health care in Britain is "free."

Can you show that he meant that it was free in the sense that no person or organization pays for it, or was it meant in the context that it is free to all citizens regardless of whether they pay taxes? To often people leave out the context in order to make a point they know they are lying about. I seriously doubt few people do not understand that it is paid for through taxes.

[_Chap]

... All I need do here is point you to Melchett's claim, previously, the health care in Britain is "free."

Can you show that he meant that it was free in the sense that no person or organization pays for it, or was it meant in the context that it is free to all citizens regardless of whether they pay taxes? To often people leave out the context in order to make a point they know they are lying about. I seriously doubt few people do not understand that it is paid for through taxes.

Indeed. Droopy's point was either foolish or mendacious. If someone says "Health care in Britain is free", Droopy knows very well that the meaning of the sentence as used is that the treatment provided in (say) a hospital is given without any charge being made at the point of use. British people in effect pay into a compulsory insurance health scheme through taxation, so the risks of disease are shared across the whole population.

You can pay extra through voluntary private insurance to get a private room, and quicker treatment for non-urgent conditions if you want to and if you can afford it. But if you can't, you can go to the doctor with the assurance that whatever he tells you, you won't have to choose between selling your house and spending your children's heritage, or dying painfully of an untreated condition. There are no medical bankruptcies in Britain of the kind that are by no means unknown in the US.

Of course nobody pretends that the UK health service has unlimited resources, runs without waste, or that there is nothing in it to be criticized. But then the same goes for any other health care system, including that of the US. And so far as anything is certain in politics, it is certain that any UK party that planned to abolish the basically free health care now in place and introduce the US system instead would lose an election in a landslide.

[_Themis]

On the face of it, our private healthcare system exists to make money. That is not in dispute. It's how the money is made that causes the problems. Theoretically, the healthcare industry should be all about preventive care and encouraging healthier lifestyles so that people are less likely to develop chronic, expensive conditions that drain funds from the company. In short, it's in their best interest to have healthier customers, which saves the company a lot in payouts. Some insurance companies do that, but more often, they save the payouts by simply denying coverage.

Insurance companies are an unnecessary extra layer that wants a nice cut of the profit as well, and you are right that many will deny coverage in order to make more money. The public system is also there to make money . The government may own the hospital, but there are many that will make their profit like the doctors, nurses, administrators, companies who build the buildings and all the medical products needed. There is plenty of profit motive in a public system. This is not to say that any public system in the world is perfect and most countries that have a public system are also looking at ways to improve the system.

The other half of the equation is that there are millions of people who are not insured. When they get sick and can't pay for it, hospitals are legally required to stabilize them and treat emergency conditions. Who do you think pays for the uninsured? That's right: all of us. The government reimburses the hospitals for some of the expense, but mostly they account for these expenses in their billing structure, so the insured pay higher premiums, and all of us pay higher taxes to cover these expenses.

Unless they earn a little to much and have to go into debt to pay for unplanned health care. It's also a problem that uninsured don't go to the hospital or clinic until things get bad enough. In a public system or those who have insurance, they tend to go in more often and can get better preventive care.

[_Runtu]

Indeed. Droopy's point was either foolish or mendacious. If someone says "Health care in Britain is free", Droopy knows very well that the meaning of the sentence as used is that the treatment provided in (say) a hospital is given without any charge being made at the point of use. British people in effect pay into a compulsory insurance health scheme through taxation, so the risks of disease are shared across the whole population.

In this country, we do the same thing, except the money doesn't come entirely from taxation. We pay for everyone's healthcare through higher insurance premiums and taxation to offset services for the uninsured. The difference is that here, many uninsured people, such as Droopy, suffer from a health problem that they can't afford to treat; so they wait until they have a health crisis before going to the ER.

As I recall, Droopy has an untreated hernia, which could easily be repaired surgically, but he can't afford to get the surgery because he has no insurance. If he's lucky, he'll be able to get health insurance while the hernia is still relatively benign. But, if the hernia becomes strangulated, he will either have to have emergency surgery or die. I'm guessing he and his family will choose the former, in which case Droopy can try to raise the money by putting cans on the counters of convenience stores and asking friends and family for help. Of course, that's unlikely to pay the bills entirely, so the costs will probably be eaten by the hospital and the government in large part and passed on to the rest of us through higher taxes and higher medical costs.

Of course nobody pretends that the UK health service has unlimited resources, runs without waste, or that there is nothing in it to be criticized. But then the same goes for any other health care system, including that of the US. And so far as anything is certain in politics, it is certain that any UK party that planned to abolish the basically free health care now in place and introduce the US system instead would lose an election in a landslide.

That's the interesting thing about all this. As much as people here complain about the healthcare system in countries like Canada and the UK, no one in those countries is clamoring for a repeal of national healthcare. If it's so awful, you would think everyone would want to go back to a private system.

My BIL did a visiting professorship in Melbourne, Australia, a few years ago, and one of his sons needed an emergency appendectomy. He got right in, had the surgery, and spent a couple of days in the hospital, all at no charge.

The free market (an oxymoron if there ever were one) works quite well in most sectors of the economy, but our system in the US seems to be at least as inefficient and costly as nationalized systems in other countries.

[_Chap]

Insurance companies are an unnecessary extra layer that wants a nice cut of the profit as well, and you are right that many will deny coverage in order to make more money. The public system is also there to make money . The government may own the hospital, but there are many that will make their profit like the doctors, nurses, administrators, companies who build the buildings and all the medical products needed. There is plenty of profit motive in a public system.

I find the underlined part of that quote rather surprising. I have heard the word 'profit' used in a context where a commercial transaction is in question, but I am really puzzled to see it extended to salaried individuals. That would mean, for instance, that the soldiers whose sacrifice in Iraq was recently celebrated were 'making a profit' out of the war and are thus in the same category as Halliburton shareholders.

That seems to me a pointless abolition of a useful distinction.