Jamie, yes, any system has freeloaders. But I believe public health would have more freeloaders.

"And Dingle, if you do accept that, then as a fiscal conservative, wouldn't you agree that introducing such a system would be financially beneficial to your society, in the long term?"

I don't know that it would be beneficial to my society in the long term. And government intervention is not always a good thing.

Hisbiskiss, "actually, the mere fact that you think there is WIDESPREAD abuse," I don't believe I said that.

But DingleberryJones, there already are freeloaders. Lots of them. Many of them not even by choice, but simply out of necessity. And because they can't afford regular doctors visits and such they only show up at the emergency room when things get really bad, thus costing the rest of us all far more money than they would have if they could have just gone to a regular doctor.

Do you really think that there's something magical about the US that would make our freeloaders more widespread or expensive under a single payer system than they are in other countries? I honestly just think a single payer system is the best option (of course sadly, that's not even on the table right now, the best we can hope for is a half measure to reform the crappy and inefficient system we have now, and provide some competition to said system with a government plan. At least we'll hopefully get more people into the system and covered enough to get regular health care rather than only in the emergency room).

DrOct,
I believe we are becoming a nation of faultless victims, looking for the easy buck to fall into our lap. I don't know whether that culture has invaded other lands.

@DingleberryJones - Dude. First you jumped out in front of the Draugnar bus proclaiming that you're not a racist for no reason at all. Next you got defensive and started rambling through who you voted for when you should have just answered the question. Finally you dropped the antagonizing "I don't want to pay for your healthcare, durp." Are you just going to dance around all afternoon refusing to back up your belief that public health INSURANCE would have more freeloaders, or are you going to provide data to back it up?

Did you mistake a @Draugnar for an @Dingle or something?

You're right though - you didn't say the line about abuse, Draugnar did. I got you confused for a bit because you were so busy interjecting yourself into comments that weren't directed at you that your posts bled together. Sorry about that but my point still stands.

Government intervention isn't always good - that's for sure. It also isn't always bad.

@DingleberryJones - Where did this culture you seem to think is so widespread come from? Why are the people of the US so much less responsible than our neighbors to the North or across the Atlantic? Are you actually basing this on anything at all or just gut instinct? Because my gut instinct tells me we're not all that different and that the vast majority of people would prefer to (and do!) work hard try to take responsibility for themselves. But the system is stacked against a lot of people. Either they can't find a jot at all, or can't find a full time job. Or they work for a small employer who can't afford to provide group insurance, or they can't work a full time job that would provide health care because of an injury or some form of disability. Not only that, but because of duplicate bureaucracy, and a system that is largely for profit and therefore unable or unwilling to provide the health care a lot of these people need, those of us with insurance end up paying a whole hell of a lot more than we need to for it. I just don't see how a reformed system that opens up health care to more people, and spreads the costs over more people, therefore lowering the costs for any one person and/or company would be worse than what we have now.

I've heard a lot of your objections to reforms that have been suggested here, but it doesn't seem like you've had much of an opportunity to say what you think would be a good system (probably because you're largely just defending your objections at this point), so what do you think should be done? How could we improve the current health care system? Should we? What would your ideal health care system look like?

@Hibiscuss,
It would appear maybe I misread your post about the use of 'welfare mom' meaning that if I am against public health care because I don't want to support WELFARE MOMS then I must be a racist.

I'm not sure why 'But I don't want to pay for your healthcare.' is antagonistic. I don't want to pay for Draugnar or Kestas's healthcare either. I want to pay for mine, my wifes and my kids. And if my parents need it, then theirs too.

DrOct ,
Call me jaded from working in the Property and Casualty claims business.

@DingleberryJones - So... what do you propose as a good health care system?

@DrOct, if I had that answer, I would run for office.

Well at least you're honest.

My gut instinct is that, since the culture in the U.S. is very similar to that in Canada and rather similar to that in the UK, and since Canada and the UK have more generous social policies in almost every way than those in the U.S., the U.S. will not have a more significant freeloading problem than Canada and the UK have.

Well, maybe that's a little more than a gut instinct; it's not like anybody here is citing hard statistics. (^_^)

I think the U.S. has more variety of culture than the UK or Canada, though. That variety breeds the kind of paranoia that leads to the knee-jerk reaction against "More generous social policies."

@Hibiskiss - maybe most right wing conservatives are white. In fact, I'm sure the numbers would prove that to be true. But to say white people without the qualification implies most whites are right wing conservatives, and that is still bullshit.

And you did NOT say those terms were masked racism by the right. You said they were masked racism by white people. Big difference there. So, yes, I assumed you were black as a white person, generally speaking, would not assume most white people were racist. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Making an assumption based on someone's comments is not racism. It is speculation in an effort to understand the other person's perspective. Had I said you must be one of the mouchers because I assumed your were black, that would be racism. But, as I pointed out, slackers and mouchers are not restricted to any one race.

That being said, I see you are actually an "Angry Young (White) Man", Mr. Daniel Finley.

Finally, it isn't Health Insurance Reform that is being presented, but Healthcare Reform, all aspects of it.

One more note on the racism and right-win vs. left-wing topics. Like Dingle (I hate to admit how much I'm like him, sometimes) I am a fiscal conservative who voted for Reagan and the elder Bush, but also voted for Obama and for Kentucky's current democratic governor, Steve Beshear. McCain's healthcare plan (and the possibility that Palin could actually end up in the highest office considering McCain's age) scared the crap out of me. But the government at the State and Federal levels already take %25 percent of my pay. I can't afford to see them take even more and I know a plan like this would have pork attached to it which, without line item vetoing, would end up costing us even more in taxes than just the healthcare reform.

I believe in helping those who try to help themselves (trying to get an education and just barely scrapping by or out looking for work but the economy sucks so bad it isn't there to be found) or simply can't help themselves (the truly infirm, disabled, mentlly or physically handicapped), but the mouchers and slackers (women who have multiple kids from multiple fathers all because they won't use a fucking condom when they are already on welfare, dumbasses who piss away every dollar that comes their way from the welfare programs on things like big screen TVs and pot) I refuse to give an extra dime to.

I believe welfare reform is something we need to look at before healthcare reform. We need to make certain the system is harder to abuse by making recipients prove need or show effort with MEASURABLE goals and by providing the support in tangible ways that don't include money. For instance, "food stamps" (now a debit card type of system in most places) are supposed to be used strictly for buying food, but the cards get bought and sold on the street all the time. Tie the cards to the individual so that ONLY that individual canuse the card, and pursue CRIMINAL prosecution against anyone found aiding the abuse of the system. If a store employee, manager, or owner allows people to use them for fraudulent purposes, don't just shut down the store. Put the people responsible behind bars for a few years.

But that is just my opinion...

Why not attack the Social Security problem before adding anothe liability to the books?

@ag: Because, while you prefer to:

2) Give little or no benefit to anyone, to prevent people from abusing the system, leaving people who need and deserve the benefits with nothing.

Jamie and I prefer to:

3) Give benefits to everyone who seems to need it, at the risk of people abusing the system.

@Xapi - where was "1)"?

In page 4:

1) To have an incredibly large bureaucratic force with standarts (and who sets those standarts?) to determine who is worthy of aid and who is not.

Gotcha! Yep, definitely applies to Social Security.

Hey gang,

I want to state that, even though we've gotten a little heated on the topic off and on, this has been an excellent debate. I've thoroughly enjoyed it and it has given me some additional things to think about. One of my biggest concerns with Healthcare Reform (and it is more than Insurance Reform) is what it will do to the economy. If we do away with private insurance, we have a shitload of people without jobs. If private oinsurance has to compete with public insurance that everyone is already paying into, we will see a mass exodus of people from private insurance because they are already paying their premiums in their taxes and can't opt out of the system, which will result in layoffs and possible failures of insurance companies resulting in the same loss of jobs. A loss of that many jobs in a time when unemployment is in the double digits in many places across the nation is fiscally and publicly irresponsible.

But to approach this subject after the economy has stabilized is actually something I could get behind. It needs to be done, everyone agrees, but how and when is where we all differ.

I thought SS was easily abused?

Xapi I thought you said you were a fiscal guy. How can you justify spending more debt before fixing a problem that will leave the country without social security? I don't believe both can be done, and think social security is most important, since we've already established it and people are already depending/dependant on it.

Easy fix for Social Security - eliminate the caps on contributions. As it stands, for reasons I can't really understand, people only pay into Social Security on the first 100,000(ish) that they make. Everything after that doesn't pay into Social Security. Raise that limit a lot or eliminate it. Problem solved.

You thought wrong. I'm not a "fiscal guy", whatever that means.

If you have money issues, cut down military spending.

Or what DrOct said, that seems like a good idea too.

Draugnar is right, this has been a very interesting and stimulating debate, kudos to
everyone for contributing, whatever side of the issue you support. Draugnar +1

@DrOct: "eliminate the caps on contributions"
Damn right. People should be taxed as much as they can afford, for the good of the whole. DrOct +1

@Xapi: "If you have money issues, cut down military spending"
Xapi +1

Now I'm off to the pub.

I'd also like to support Draugnar's point, this was indeed a very good debate.

I hope your use of the past tense doesn't imply that we're done just yet! (But yes I've been enjoying this a lot!).

Well, I think by now it is pretty clear what each of us think, and from now on all we can do is keep bringing up the same points over and over again.

I want to correct one piece of misinformation that's come up a few times; I'll quote Draugnar's latest comment:
>If private oinsurance has to compete with public insurance that everyone is already paying into, we will see a mass exodus of people from private insurance because they are already paying their premiums in their taxes and can't opt out of the system

This is not true; the public option in the main bill now in Congress is *not* paid for by taxes, but by premiums. Not only can you opt out of that, you have to opt in to it.

Of course, the premiums are subsidised for the poor, which comes out of taxes, but most people will not get this, so they should have a free market to choose one plan or another.

To be sure, you can argue that subsidies for the public plan will tend to increase over time, with the caps raised over time. That might not happen, but even if it does (and I expect that it will), still it could happen slowly enough not shock the economy (and again I expect that it will, as the Senate debates precisely this issue).

@Toby - there are about 4 different versions and at least two I know of do NOT have the subsidized premiums in them. You CANNOT be certain that the subsidized premiums would make the final cut. But even if they did, unless the premiums are merely competitve and don't blow private insurance premiums out of the water, you could still see an exodus from private insurance. They way I'd like to see it is subsidized premiums, but the insurance is only available to those who don't have a reasonable private insurance option available to them. Kentucky already has one similar to this. If you can't get affordable (based on income and other factors) insurance, the state will guarantee you get coverage through them. But if you can, then they won't let you use the system. It provides fair and balanced coverage to all residents based on their ability to pay and the availability of the coverage.