Is 'I simply don't want it' a good enough explaination to be against healthcare 'reform'? Why or why not?

“I simply don’t want it” isn’t a good reason for anything. You don’t “just don’t want it”, there’s always a reason for that.

Of course, for some things, you don’t need to give a reason, so you could justify saying “I simply don’t want it”. In a constructive discussion you can never, though.

No, it’s not a reason to begin with.

Reasons are not opinions. Reasons are what you give to people who ask you why you have opinioins.

Of course not. The person who states that either believes that his desires are more important than those of whom it would benefit, or is under the misinformed impression that government-run healthcare will be mandatory.

Valid reasons to be against the current reform legislation include:
“I don’t want my taxes going up”
“I don’t want the government’s program to give my own healthcare company more competition”.

Another reason to be against it (assuming this happens) is:
“I don’t want my compensation to be fixed by the government when the compensation of lawyers, bankers, engineers, computer programmers, etc. isn’t.”

@shilolo, that’s not a fact-based reason, as no health insurance reform plan on the table is going to fix doctor’s wages. Even the public option will have to compete in a marketplace for doctors.

@Qingu There is lots of talk about making doctors salaried employees, as they are in the Veteran’s Administration system, so it certainly is a fact-based reason.

Also, insurance premiums are already at competition with what Medicare and Medicaid pay out. So, insurance company X simply pays what Medicare will pay, which is often so painfully low as to make it nearly impossible for many doctors to survive in private practice.

@shilolo, a lot of talk by who? It’s not in any of the bill proposals.

Nobody is proposing single-pay, shiholo.

@Qingu Where do you think much of the cost savings are going to come from? Insurance companies forced to accept millions of new patients will likely raise rates significantly AND lower their payments to hospitals and doctors. It may not be clearly on the table, but it certainly is in the works. Also, the government option will almost certainly fix salaries, as doctors hired to work there will be government employees. The combination of having huge numbers of doctors salaried, plus insurance companies paying less to those not working for the government will have the net effect of lowering compensation significantly.

@shilolo wait, what? “as doctors hired to work there”. Work where? We’re talking about government-run health insurrance. Not goverment run hospitals. Since when is anyone talking about the government employing doctors?

* confused *

@shilolo, salary-fixing is “certainly in the works”? Citation needed.

Also, how on earth would doctors working under the public plan be any different than doctors working under private HMO’s now? (That said, if you don’t want to have the label “government employee” you could presumably choose to only work for HMO’s and not the public plan.)

In any case, you originally said a “reason” for being against health reform is “I don’t want my compensation to be fixed by the government.” Nothing on the table will do this. Having a public option will not do this. Your original statement was not based on fact.

Also, lawyers, computer programmers, engineers, etc. all occasionally work under government contracts.

Less exhorbitant doctor, test, and prescription costs are okay by me. Maybe more people will pursue medicine out of a desire to be a healer, not a money maker.

@tinyfaery, agreed.

Though I don’t even see how doctor wages constitute the “slack” in the system today. Doctors are a scarce resource and will be even scarcer with 45 million + extra insured. Also, doctors don’t compete in a fair market today. I fail to see how ensuring more marketplace competition, and adding to doctor demand, would somehow make doctor wages go down.

I suppose there’s a chance it could happen. But I’d like to think that doctors would care more about helping tens of millions of people get health care than, you know, possibly losing a fraction of their income.

@Qingu I acquiesce. You are right, as always.

There are 47 million people who don’t have health care. Out of those 18,000 per year die because of it, many of them children. Saying “you just don’t want it” is basically telling them to go fuck themselves, which it still being a free country, is your prerogative if you insist on being a dickhead.

By the way, we already have “single payer” in this country. Its called Medicare, and you would be hard pressed indeed to find a senior who doesn’t like it. You can go to any doctor or specialist you want. Ninety three cents out of every Medicare dollar goes directly to your health care, while only 78 cents of the money you pay to a private insurer actually goes to your health care. (Instead, it goes to fancy corporate jets, $200 million dollar CEO salaries, advertising, lobbying Congressmen for special benefits, and finding new ways to screw people out of benefits they have already paid for.) Seniors are the healthiest group in the whole society; believe it or not, even more healthy than young people, many of whom work at entry-level jobs that don’t offer health insurance.

We could very easily expand Medicare to cover everyone, and the cost savings in administrative costs would be more than enough to pay for everyone who is not currently insured. Government might be nominally “bigger” but it wouldn’t be anymore intrusive than Medicare is now(which any doctor can tell you is far less intrusive, easier to deal with, and less quirky than the maze of different private health plans we have now). “Bigger” also gives you economies of scale, which are exactly what you want in any insurance pool where you are spreading risk across a large population.

What kind of health insurance do you have?

@MontyZuma, is it accurate to call Medicare “single-payer”? As I understand the term, it means that every citizen can (or has to) buy into a single program.

Anyway, I’m for single-payer from a philosophical standpoint. I do think Obama raises a good point that suddenly shifting to a single-payer system could result in an extremely disruptive transition period, which is why he’s supporting more incremental reforms. But whatevz, hopefully we’ll get it someday.

I like what these doctors have to say.

@Qingu Well, nobody has to buy into Medicare. It’s an entitlement, which means you get it (at least Part A) whether you need it or not. Part A covers hospital care; Part B is nominally optional (meaning you can refuse it, but in most cases you would be a fool to do so). It covers all doctor visits, specialists, tests, physical therapy, medical devices and major prescription drugs. It costs about $90 per month (deducted from your Social Security check), otherwise you have the “choice” of paying things like MRIs out of pocket, that can easily run $1,600.

Medical Part D, which covers an expanded drug formulary, is also optional. People who have health insurance as part of their retirement get most of what Part D covers at no cost. This “Medi-gap” insurance pays any difference between what Medicare covers and whatever your former employer would be giving you if you were still employed (which is less and less every year).

So, under Medicare, you still have the flexibility to refuse parts that would be redundant with insurance you already have, but the basic deal everyone gets is the Medicare deal. And it is a pretty good deal. But, if you can get better, nobody is stopping you.

Medicare is single payer insofar as it is your primary insurance. If something isn’t covered by Medicare and you have secondary insurance that covers it, then the secondary insurer pays. You have one, very easy billing system for the whole sheboot, and you don’t have to put up with automatic denials and all the other runaround you have to put up with with private insurers.