Bay Area Liberal/Progressive vs. LA liberal/progressive

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by Clarks

Two points, the folks who hate the facts of socialist healthcare point to American Cancer treatments, thass about it.

Two, I wait very long for my Socialized Healthcare appointments, but, so what?
The care is great, and all Americans help pay for it.

The only nation in the world that spends a higher percentage of its GDP on Healthcare than the United States is East Timor.

Americans spend $7,439 per person for health care, 30% of that is profit for Insurance Companies.

If you don't think there is a problem, you ain't thinking.

1) You performed a service to the American people through your military service. Your VA care is a type of pension plan. Western societies have been taking care of their soldiers (knowing the valuable role they play) since Roman times. Thats hardly an argument for socialized care for everyone.

2) The US spends alot on medical care not because theres something inherently wrong with free market mechanisms (as implied in socialistic schemes) but because there is'nt enough of a free market for healthcare.

The AMA is basically a medical cartel that limits the number of doctors that can be trained, insurance companies can't compete across state lines, FDA regulations etc. All of these things raise the cost of medical care, doctors and creating new drugs.

But this does not automatically mean socialized medicine is the answer.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Glamrockerfs

hey im a bit of a social studies/anthropology freak (California in particular) and i was wondering:
Most of us can agree that The Bay area and LA are two of the most liberal/progressive areas in America. Most people when they think liberal they think SF. Though I wonder how Bay Area Liberals compare to a LA/SOCAL Liberal. While alot of the general views are very similar, some of the attitude may be different? Can you comment on this perception

Bay Area liberal/progressive: Super liberal/activist to the point of near intolerance,

LA/SOCAL: A more let live sort of progressive as long as you don't negativly affect me I leave you be

How true is this?

I think California has "selective" liberalism. When it comes to issues like environment, gay marriage, mass transit and legalizing drugs the interest and enthusiasm is generally very high.

When it comes to avoid cutting the minimal care provided for those not capable, such as SSI supplement or Medicaid, not nearly the interest.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by BayDude

But this does not automatically mean socialized medicine is the answer.

Well, it sure doesn't indicate that corporate insurance is the answer to reigning in health care costs!

The goal of corporate health care is to maximize profits; not to do what is best for the patient. If a corporation is stuck with a patient who is costing more than he is generating in premium payments, he'll soon be denied coverage. That's how the corporate business model is designed to work.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

Well, it sure doesn't indicate that corporate insurance is the answer to reigning in health care costs!

The goal of corporate health care is to maximize profits; not to do what is best for the patient. If a corporation is stuck with a patient who is costing more than he is generating in premium payments, he'll soon be denied coverage. That's how the corporate business model is designed to work.

True the goal is to maximize profits, like any business. But with higher medical costs due to medical cartels like the AMA, high drug developement costs which are passed on to consumers because of the FDA and frivilous lawsuits there is a undue burden on insurance companies.

The solution is not the lazy option of socializing everything, but allowing the market to work properly and training more doctors.

But if you are denied rightful coverage for a non-preexistenting condition, accident etc that should be illegal. Its not only bad business but just unethical and immoral.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by BayDude

True the goal is to maximize profits, like any business. But with higher medical costs due to medical cartels like the AMA, high drug developement costs which are passed on to consumers because of the FDA and frivilous lawsuits there is a undue burden on insurance companies.

The solution is not the lazy option of socializing everything, but allowing the market to work properly and training more doctors.

But if you are denied rightful coverage for a non-preexistenting condition, accident etc that should be illegal. Its not only bad business but just unethical and immoral.

Well again, the goal of business is to maximize profits...not just realize some profit, but to maximize profit. A corporate insurer that currently makes 30% profit will be scrambling to figure out a way to may 35% and then 40%...and doing whatever it takes to get there. The corporate insurance industry has spawned an entire sub-industry of bad-faith litigation in health care coverage because they deny so many legitimate claims (read Grisham's The Rainmaker to get a feel for it). And while you're correct that the consequences of this market model are unethical and immoral, it's not "bad business;" it's how the system is designed to work. Most patients who are denied coverage simply give up and the occasional successful lawsuit is just part of the cost of doing business. Whatever its ethical implications, it maximizes profits, ergo it's "good business."

What we have to understand here is that a human life is fundamentally different from some kind of widget that comes off an assembly line. And the competitive market structure that was designed to be successful for widget manufacture, distribution and sales, is ill-suited to meeting the radically different goal of providing the greatest possible good for the the greatest possible number of people by assuring them equal access to quality health care.

[Clarks]

1) You performed a service to the American people through your military service. Your VA care is a type of pension plan. Western societies have been taking care of their soldiers (knowing the valuable role they play) since Roman times. Thats hardly an argument for socialized care for everyone.

It is socialized medicine despite all attempts to rationalize it as something else.

2) The US spends alot on medical care not because theres something inherently wrong with free market mechanisms (as implied in socialistic schemes) but because there is'nt enough of a free market for healthcare.

That is as deep a pile of BS as I have ever read, and is patently false, the US has the biggest free market for health care that has ever existed at any time in any country.

The AMA is basically a medical cartel that limits the number of doctors that can be trained, insurance companies can't compete across state lines, FDA regulations etc. All of these things raise the cost of medical care, doctors and creating new drugs.

Really, that accounts for the 30% profit margins of the major health insurers? I think not.

But this does not automatically mean socialized medicine is the answer.

The success in delivering excellent healthcare at a lower cost to society in Socialized countries as opposed to America shows clearly that your statement is clearly wrong.

You can dislike socialized medicine, but that is just bizarre thinking. The evidence is clear.