Debate: do we need greater governmental control of health care?

Welcome to the third formal debate hosted by Swords Crossed and open to multi-blog participation! Today we will debate whether the US would benefit from greater governmental control of health care. Our current hybrid system suffers from skyrocketing costs and piecemeal coverage. Both Democratic candidates have proposed expanding programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid and imposing more stringent regulations on private insurers. Will such steps lead to improvements in the efficiency and quality of health care in America, or will they backfire and make an already struggling system worse? Come share your opinion and your reasoning.

Click here to join the debate at cruxlux

Essays with useful background for this debate:
** Ideas for American Healthcare
** Must our final years be torture
** Medical Insurance, two personal tales
** Universal health care dead in CA: implications
** Health Care News on Clinics and Competition

Basic information from Wikipedia:

The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world. [...] The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The WHO study has been criticized by conservative commentators because "fairness in financial contribution" was used as an assessment factor, marking down countries with high per-capita private or fee-paying health treatment. The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate and 45th for highest total life expectancy.

Would greater governmental control of health care improve our system? I've set up a debate at the neutral third-party site cruxlux, which has a format specifically tailored to structured point-counterpoint debate and incorporates user feedback on arguments. I've created a skeleton framework for the debate and now you can add arguments, comment, give points, or engage in conversation on any aspect of the topic of interest to you. Everyone is invited to participate and hopefully the end result will be a constructive examination of the pros and cons of more government involvement in our health care system.

We are also linking all essays written recently on this topic here, so if you write or recently wrote something on your blog please comment below and it will be added to the list. Comments at the original post are encouraged, of course, but please feel free to incorporate that discussion into the large-scale cruxlux debate as well.

Our second debate discussed whether Edwards supporters should prefer Obama or Clinton.
Our first debate discussed the pros and cons of the Electoral College.

•  Not really a Clinton vs Obama thing

  More of a Democrats vs Republicans matchup. But if you want to get into the specifics on the Dem side that's cool too, of course.

  by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:58:50 AM PDT

•  Abso - Frigging - Lutely

  The civilized world has spoken.

  Personally I'm sick of living on this deadly frontier.

  by Gooserock on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:06:42 AM PDT

•  Uh...

  Is this one of these troll diaries I keep hearing about?

  I'm pretty sure everyone here (at least those who are welcome, maybe not the likes of me) agrees that we need more government control of healthcare. Mind you, only if their government controls things, and not say, another political party (not that I want that other one to be in control of anything either).

  So really, where's the debate?

  by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM PDT

  •  The debate is with

    conservatives and libertarians and some moderate Democrats.

    The idea is to make a case for your side, so if most people here want to try to demonstrate the more government control is better then that's great.

    by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM PDT

    •  Um. Sorry, not going to be baited.

      That's not welcome here. Or so I've been led to believe.

      by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:20:18 AM PDT

      •  Baited?

        What the fuck, dude...

        I'm not baiting any one. If you aren't interested in making a case for your position then don't. No need to be a jerk about it.

        by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM PDT

        •  Calm down.

          You come here echoing 'big government' conservative talking points and then wonder why folks here chafe at your transparent attempt to frame the debate in dishonest terms.

          by Harlan Pepper on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM PDT

          •  Actually...

            I'm not necessarily in agreement with either premise. I just know better than to state such a case here. I had my own diary that was much more polite than this, and only wanted to talk about the nature of the problems in healthcare, and even that wasn't welcome.

            We probably don't agree, Harlan, on what the solution is, even in general. But I do understand that my opinion isn't welcome here.

            by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:59:37 AM PDT

            •  Your opinion is welcome

              in the debate...

              and if you wrote something relevant that you'd like me to include in the list feel free to link.

              There is no baiting here, no dishonest framing, just an attempt to get people on both sides talking about why they feel the way they do.

              by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM PDT

              •  I don't think that you speak for Daily Kos.

                My opinion, running contrary to the prevailing "wisdom" here isn't welcome. This much has been made known to me on several occasions.

                This whole diary is an attempt to bait, and if you're not careful, you might end up here unwelcome too.

                You're not even being fair to them. Most of the people here see the "government control" thing as an unavoidable side effect of the most optimal solution, and not the primary aim. And, it's not even difficult to imagine that such solutions would be a vast improvement over what we have now, which is utterly fucked up.

                It's easy to talk about freedom and libertarianish ideals when you're well fed, but it's also easy to fall in love with socialistic ideals when you're hungry.

                Any libertarian that doesn't try to figure out how people might not go without and still retain freedom is doomed to the fringe.

                by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:51 AM PDT

                •  I'm not speaking for anyone

                  I set up a debate at a neutral site where people from all sides of the political spectrum could participate. I provided some links to essays which take a variety of positions. I have a basic introduction laying out the question. That's it.

                  The rest is up to everyone else to fill in, as they desire.

                  by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM PDT

                  •  There can't be such a debate here.

                    This isn't neutral territory. It's not meant to be.

                    by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM PDT

                    •  Click the link...

                      cruxlux is a new site geared towards debates. It's still beta.

                      They have everything, from politics to sports to entertainment.

                      I have nothing to do with them, I just find their interface very useful for point-counterpoint debate.

                      by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM PDT

          •  Not at all

            I'm not echoing talking points, I'm trying to start a discussion and get people on both sides to justify their stance. A cursory glance at my diary history would reveal that I favor universal health care and am hardcore liberal.  

            by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM PDT

            •  You're right of course.

              New here. I need to get better at this posting stuff. Patience, is what I lack.

              What frustrates me is the very term government control. Control, along with force and punishment,  are very right wing views of how our government operates. Conservatives use terms like these to generate nagative reactions from people in their base and to seperate mainstream Americans from liberalism

              So I concluded you were masking your intentions. I'm sorry about that.

              Control only feeds the conservative view of government. If the role of government is to protect and empower her citizens, maybe something in the vein of transparency or accountabilty in legislation for the medical and insurance system would convey a more neutral perspective?

              by Harlan Pepper on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

              •  Gotcha

                No problem.

                It's always hard to pick a "Resolved" type statement that is both concise and clear and avoids the political connotations that so many words carry now.

                I generally avoid the "framing" discussions =) but isn't the idea that conservatives reject the "nurturing mother" (protect and empower) frame and respond better to the "authoritarian father" (control) frame? I guess it depends which audience you are trying to reach.

                I will try to choose titles that are perfectly neutral to both sides in future.

                by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM PDT

                •  Which adult in their right mind...

                  Would want to be mothered, though?

                  by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

                  •  Well, I can't imagine any adult

                    wanting to be fathered, either.

                    I guess supposedly we respond on a subconscious level, though.

                    by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM PDT

            •  gaovernment oversight

              accountable to we the people?

              by Harlan Pepper on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM PDT

  •  Actually the free marketeers

    (not to be confused with the three musketeers or the mickey mouseketeers) think things are just hunky dory.  My father will tell you that everyone has access to healthcare...it is called the emergency room.

    by Sychotic1 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:12:28 AM PDT

    •  Actually...

      To hear them tell it, things are not hunky dory at all.

      Everyone sees the problem, near as I can tell.

      Well, unless you're getting the Dubya neocons confused with the real free marketers.

      by NoMoreNicksLeft on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM PDT

    •  And I'm sure he uses the ER

      for all his health care, right?  ;)

      The most frustrating part of the debate, for me, is the number of people who have, and always have had, coverage, who insist that the system is fine.  They remind me of the pigs on the farm who think everything is great because they are fed whenever they want it (never mind the fact that there's bacon in their feed).

      Not to ask you to argue as a surrogate for your dad, but: I'm curious about what he thinks about the over-use of the ER as it pertains to him.  I mean, say he had an actual emergency.  Would he be OK with a small delay in his care caused by the fact that all the nurses were tied up dealing with poor kids' colds?  Or, to be even more Republican: Does he know that poor people using the ER as a PCP cause price inflation at the hospital, thus causing his insurance rates to go up?

      by I on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:25:06 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        The ER is a poor substitute for preventative care, both in cost and in outcomes.

        by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:38:02 AM PDT

      •  We have had a break

        His positions enrage me to the point that I cannot talk to him any more.

        He gets Medicare etc. and has fooled his ass into thinking that everything is fine...I attribute it to brain damage tied to his multiple strokes.

        by Sychotic1 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM PDT

        •  It's a shame when politics

          comes between family.

          Hope you two get talking again, either because he sees the light or because you both change the subject =)

          by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM PDT

          •  Tried changing the subject

            but he keeps coming back to it and sending me hate mail even though I have begged him to stop.

            The only time I got him to drop the subject was when I baited him so bad I thought he was going to stroke out again.  I basically told him that his own party was using him and was never going to give him what he wants and that the proof was the fact they had the Presidency and the majority in both houses and still wouldn't pass the legislation he was so passionate about (read: abortion).

            by Sychotic1 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM PDT

•  Yes, and here's one reason why:

  Our profit-driven health care system does not care about the welfare of its patients or its employees.

  Recently, we needed a life-insurance physical.  The phlebotomist who came to do the physical told us about her working conditions.

  She's an independent contractor.  No benefits, and she only gets paid for successful visits.  If she can't find a vein, she doesn't get paid.  If for any reason she needs to do a follow-up, it's on her own dime.

  She's not reimbursed for phone calls (her business calls cost $600 last month), gas, or wear and tear on her car.

  She pays $300 per month for her minimum-coverage health insurance required by MA law.

  She lives in a shelter.

  This is how the insurance industry treats its workers.  

  by Tracker on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM PDT

  •  I thought one of the most convincing points

    Michael Moore makes is that when you have a system set up so that denying care makes money, care will be denied whenever possible.

    It makes sense that the same mentality would extend to employees.

    by brendanm98 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM PDT

•  Medicare for all

  If the private sector worked, we would not be having this discussion.  The only way to control costs and provide health care for everyone is to go to a system like medicare-for-all.  That is why every other industrial country does what they do.  They think it is immoral to do the kinds of things shown in SICKO.

  by LillithMc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM PDT