Universal Healthcare: What a crock of shit!

[Amy]

Hehe. I do get a little overzealous when I've ben out all night drinking, but I stand by my statements.

However the NHS is a godsend to many trans individuals in this country who could never manage to fund the medical aspects of their transitioning otherwise.

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by Amy

The NHS is a godsend to many trans individuals in this country who could never manage to fund the medical aspects of their transitioning otherwise.

Ah, that's worth an extra 2 points for Universal Healthcare Systems! After all, this is a TG forum lol :D

[ARIES666]

It's ok to leave the upkeep of roads and highways, collection of garbage, etc, etc to municipal or state or federal governments...god forbid they also have universal healthcare.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by ARIES666

It's ok to leave the upkeep of roads and highways, collection of garbage, etc, etc to municipal or state or federal governments...god forbid they also have universal healthcare.

Except here's the problem with your analogy, Aries -- when has the state or federal government ever handled those things both efficiently AND in a true cost-conscious manner? Where it worked in a good, clean, trouble-free manner AND it was actually economically sound? And take note of what I just said. I didn't say cost-CUTTING manner, as if I want everything to be bare bones and run completely low end, where you're trying to pinch every penny. I have no problem with throwing SOME government resources or money at the problem, in particular to help the truly, truly, truly poor. After all, that would be the humane thing to do.

But here's where I laugh at the idea of government sponsored, universal healthcare actually working: The post office.

For crying out loud, the government can't even deliver a fucking letter on time. Seriously, it can't. Forget about how long a standard postage stamp or standard package will take. That's just a total crap shoot. But even more laughable, even if I PAY for an enhanced service such as Express Mail (overnight delivery) it STILL shows up late...and even if I PAY for an enhanced service like Priority mail (guaranteed 2-3 days), it can still take as long as 10 or more days.

And think about it. Going all the way back to the Pony Express and running the clock all the way up to today, if EVER there was a government program that the American people actually came together on and said "Sure, I'm willing to see some of my tax dollars spent on establishing a good, reliable mail service. I think we ALL benefit from that" -- it's the fucking Post Office. And yet for all the BILLIONS spent on it across the decades, what did you get? A government service bogged down in rules, regulations, up and down budget cuts and continually hampered services...and in the end, shoddy service that even became a universally recognized joke.

Yet along comes something like Fed Ex as a PRIVATE business company, that says "Hey, pay us a few bucks more and we'll get your letter there overnight. Or we'll refund your money" -- and BOOM. Suddenly you've got a company that blossoms and actually DOES the job is says it will do. Why? Because unlike a Federal government operation...which supports itself with a never-ending supply of tax dollars, so it really has nothing to gain or lose by being in operation...in the case of Fed Ex it HAS to do it's job and do it reliably, otherwise it goes under.

[CreativeMind]

Oh, and to use your other analogy, don't even get me started on the concept of the Federal and State governments efficiently handling road upkeep. I'm still laughing about a story regarding a highway near me, where the government wanted to patch a quarter mile path of an interstate. For those of you not good with numbers, let me give you a visual. You ever see the running track at one of your local schools? You know, where kids go out running for gym class? Well, a quarter mile is the SAME distance as running around the track ONCE. So it's not a big distance at all.

So, the Feds and the state decide they're going to repave this stretch of road because the winter weather tore it up a bit. And they price it out and they determine it's going to cost taxpayers $250,000 and the job will take about 60 days to do. Doesn't seem too bad, right?

Well, not till the construction unions stepped in and not till State and Federal agencies wanted to tweak this and then that, etc, etc, etc...

...At which point the simple $250,000 and 60 day job ended up costing and taking,
yes, wait for it because this is government "efficiency" at it's best...

...$5 MILLION and 2 YEARS to finish.

So, as I said before, I'm down with the idea of doing "something" to help the truly, truly, truly poor in the country, so they can get some kind of health assistance. Because even on a religious Christian level, I think that's the right thing to do -- to help those in true, true, true need. On the other hand, the notion that the Federal government can step in and efficiently run a universal healthcare system for all is SO laughable to me that it actually makes me want to cry. Simply because I can't believe...given ALL the historical precedents of ANY government run program OR after looking at the results of foreign national healthcare systems....that anyone would actually think a Federal bureaucracy can run ANYTHING right.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Oh, and to use your other analogy, don't even get me started on the concept of the Federal and State governments efficiently handling road upkeep. I'm still laughing about a story regarding a highway near me, where the government wanted to patch a quarter mile path of an interstate. For those of you not good with numbers, let me give you a visual. You ever see the running track at one of your local schools? You know, where kids go out running for gym class? Well, a quarter mile is the SAME distance as running around the track ONCE. So it's not a big distance at all.

So, the Feds and the state decide they're going to repave this stretch of road because the winter weather tore it up a bit. And they price it out and they determine it's going to cost taxpayers $250,000 and the job will take about 60 days to do. Doesn't seem too bad, right?

Well, not till the construction unions stepped in and not till State and Federal agencies wanted to tweak this and then that, etc, etc, etc...

...At which point the simple $250,000 and 60 day job ended up costing and taking,
yes, wait for it because this is government "efficiency" at it's best...

...$5 MILLION and 2 YEARS to finish.

So, as I said before, I'm down with the idea of doing "something" to help the truly, truly, truly poor in the country, so they can get some kind of health assistance. Because even on a religious Christian level, I think that's the right thing to do -- to help those in true, true, true need. On the other hand, the notion that the Federal government can step in and efficiently run a universal healthcare system for all is SO laughable to me that it actually makes me want to cry. Simply because I can't believe...given ALL the historical precedents of ANY government run program OR after looking at the results of foreign national healthcare systems....that anyone would actually think a Federal bureaucracy can run ANYTHING right.

Okay! We all know government run programs are inefficient. Think of it this way, look at all of the businesses employed to do the work and the employees retained to do the work. After all, what about all the military contracts that keep thousands of workers employed building military stuff that has little or no value (i.e. Osprey). A capitalist society "needs" to be inefficient to remain stable. Inefficiency is the way the society absorbs excess capital.
Sure a gov. healthcare system will be inefficient, but so what, as long as everybody gets a reasonable amount of healthcare.

[transjen]

Jeez just relax CM, Because it will never happen because from the get go the US had a for profit health care system and it will never change the GOP will never allow that gravey train to end so i guess things will go back to normal those who have no health insuence will just go to the ER and never pay a dime so in away we already have universal heath care Jennifer

[randolph]

This is like comparing apples and oranges. The post office delivers millions of letters to anywhere every day. FedEx delivers packages in far fewer numbers and is wildly innefficient. A package sent from San Diego to Los Angeles is flown to Atlanta and back to LA, this is nuts from an energy standpoint. Granted the Post office is innefficient but it keeps a lot of people employed at good salaries, isnt that the American way?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

This is like comparing apples and oranges. The post office delivers millions of letters to anywhere every day. FedEx delivers packages in far fewer numbers and is wildly inefficient. A package sent from San Diego to Los Angeles is flown to Atlanta and back to LA, this is nuts from an energy standpoint.

Well, in terms of "how" the operation worked, that was more true of the OLD days when Fed Ex was getting itself up-and-running and still in the process of creating more package separation depots. That's back in the days when Atlanta was practically their sole package hub, which is no longer true. For example -- now that Fed Ex has become a larger scale, more successful operation -- it DOES run routes directly between LA and San Diego. But it took a bit of time to develop the profitability to establish that, which again goes to my core point. As a PRIVATE business they had to figure out ways to do things that made economic, cost-saving sense unlike a government operation which simply says "Ah, we'll just throw more taxpayer money at it. Who cares what it costs?"

And keep something in mind. Even in the old days, while it may have seemed nuts from an energy standpoint, it actually made sense economically to transport packages that way. Simply because you have to break it down as a cost analysis and realize the FAR GREATER number of packages that you're collecting in San Diego or LA are THEN going eastward to other parts of the country versus to each other. So, it actually did make sense to fly everything out of LA and San Diego...get them to Atlanta or Dallas...and then sort whatever few packages you had (for each other) right back to them instead of having the high cost of having to operate and maintain several planes (not to mention the support personnel that you'd also need) just to send mail back and forth between those two cities.

Originally Posted by randolph

Granted the Post office is innefficient but it keeps a lot of people employed at good salaries, isnt that the American way?

LMAO! Well, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, now is it? So let me get this straight. You're saying that even though we KNOW something is inefficient and not working right, we should keep it going just to keep some people employed? Congratulations -- you just summed up why companies like GM became bloated and ultimately imploded on themselves economically, not to mention you just gave the perfect definition of everything that's wrong with government work.

We don't do it because it works or it's too expensive!
We do it because it created a paycheck for someone!

Sorry, but in these troubled economic times THOSE DAYS need to be over...