Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Muskan]

Letter to The New York Times (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081106110726.aspx)

To the Editor:

Advocating universal health care, Steven Safyer, M.D., hopes that "the next administration will see the wisdom of acting (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/opinion/lweb06health.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=letters%20steven%20safyer&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) — not just talking — so Americans get the care they deserve. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/opinion/lweb06health.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=letters%20steven%20safyer&st=cse&oref=slogin)" (Letters, Nov. 6)

What evidence is there that Americans do not now "get the care they deserve"? Material deserts are earned, not given by nature. In the case of health care, the fact that even POOR Americans consume other things so abundantly casts doubt on the supposition that this land is crowded with people who are denied health care that they deserve. Consider, for example, that today 80 percent of POOR households have air-conditioning (compared to only 36 percent of ALL households who had it in 1970); 75 percent of poor households today own a car, and 31 percent own two cars; the typical POOR American has more household living space than does the typical Parisian and Londoner; and nearly 80 percent of POOR American households have a VCR or DVD player.*

Someone who voluntarily purchases X instead of Y - where X is widely regarded as less vital than Y - cannot legitimately be said to deserve Y.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

* Robert E. Rector, "How Poor Are America's Poor? (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064es.cfm)" Heritage Foundation, August 2007

Don Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University and a Business & Media Institute adviser.

Don Boudreaux sent this letter to NY Times, Obviously it was rejected.
But the letter raises serious issues.

Do American's really 'deserve' Universal Care, as was promised by President Obama during his campaign?

[fetishdj]

The difference between Europe and America in terms of 'living space' is purely a land thing. You quite simply have more space build on so you spread out your cities as much as possible. Unlike, for example, Amsterdam where you have buildings that are three stories or more tall but only have one room per floor (because you pay tax based on the building footprint not the number of floors).

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care. I say this speaking as someone who has benefitted from it for all his life.

FRom a practical viewpoint... I think it is a more difficult proposition to achieve in real life. Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment and I cannot think how bad the American equivilent would be... probably too impractical to start off now....

[Muskan]

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care.

Is it really a Humanitarian point of view?

What is wrong if it is stated that Everyone is free and responsible for his actions. Nobody is obligated for any other body and every person has to earn his own living and securities By his own Hard-work Honestly?
It is true that there can surely be some very unfortunate cases who just cannot earn a good living for some reason or other. For that, voluntary charity is the answer.
But how Humanitarian is it to force a compulsory tax on all citizen to bear the Universal Healthcare security for others incuding his ownself?
I mean, the government won't be creating money, it will be created by the citizens, the Individual citizen.
It should be his freedom to chose whether to give a voluntary tax (or charity) to some Non-Governmental-organization, or a Governmental one, to provide health securities to the needies who need it genuinely. It should be his freedom if he Do not want to pay his earned money for such project.
Why should he be taxed under Compulsory taxation for such project which basically is not worthy to be supported.

[MMI]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

[Pearlgem]

Thank you, MMI. I was groping for the words but you've hit the nail on the head.

[Muskan]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?


So you want it to be like canada? where people prays that USA may not start Universal health care programe?
There is a report on Canadian health care system
Canadians urging Americans to not to Apply Universal Health Care System
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=H4u5x9XAsAs&

[Ragoczy]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

[mkemse]

Found this post by a 31 year old female in the United State, afterrding her short but specific rational of Universal Health care it made sense, as she says
She can go 2 ways, as a taxpayer have other pay for her needed surgery, recover and go back to work because her private insurance is to expensive OR l do hnot have the surgery, remain disbaubled and lve off th system the rst of her life

her are her exact words:

I am a 31 year old American female that has been working since I was 14 years old. I have a family and a decent job, but my insurance is astronomical in cost and doesn't' even cover everything. I am facing the possibility of having to have surgery to remove a growth deformity in the heel of my feet. If I don't have it done, I will do more damage to my tendons and ligaments and ultimately end up disabled. I want to have the surgery so that I won't have to face disability and that I will be able to work, but sadly my insurance will not cover the surgery. So here I am at 31, now facing the fact that I might have to apply for disability because insurance is outrageous.


Now tell me, and don't forget I am a taxpayer too, would you rather help pay for my insurance so that I can have surgery and go back to work, or would you rather me end up on disability, then on public assistance and food stamps for the rest of my life?
Which makes more sense?

[Tufty]

My personal view is that health care should be available to everybody - irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Our Natioanl Health Service in the UK caters for that although, as fetishdj says, "Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment"

From another personal perspective, if I'd had to pay for the treatment and medications I've received over the last 2 year, I'd have gone up in smoke out of the crematorium chimney a year ago!!

[gagged_Louise]

From a purely humanitarian viewpoint: yes, all humans deserve free health care.

Is it really a Humanitarian point of view?

What is wrong if it is stated that Everyone is free and responsible for his actions. Nobody is obligated for any other body and every person has to earn his own living and securities By his own Hard-work Honestly?
It is true that there can surely be some very unfortunate cases who just cannot earn a good living for some reason or other. For that, voluntary charity is the answer.
But how Humanitarian is it to force a compulsory tax on all citizen to bear the Universal Healthcare security for others incuding his ownself?
I mean, the government won't be creating money, it will be created by the citizens, the Individual citizen.
It should be his freedom to chose whether to give a voluntary tax (or charity) to some Non-Governmental-organization, or a Governmental one, to provide health securities to the needies who need it genuinely. It should be his freedom if he Do not want to pay his earned money for such project.
Why should he be taxed under Compulsory taxation for such project which basically is not worthy to be supported.

None of us can foresee all the results of our actions, not even within our own family or our own neighbourhood or business (I'm writing "family" rather than "one's own life" because I guess most of us do not really want a liberty that has a substantial risk of putting our kids on the street, lead to our partner being killed or maimed for life, acted upon them in the nick of time, without them or us (personally) having done anything much to get there or "deserve it"). No child, except the kid of a millionaire or a king, is born with the resources to take it safely up to adult life. We all depend on parents, schools, employment and on the community around us!

If we think all people must take "every consequence of what they do", then we shouldn't have any trouble with seeing unarmed men and women being raped, killed and tortured - or who see their children killed or forced into slavery - because they happened to live in a city that's taken by enemy forces (this was the regular thing in many places for most of written history, and still happens today in some parts of Africa). They could have moved out in time, or they could have declared they didn't want to have any part in the conflict, couldn't they?

Of course sometimes people make bad choices, they invest money in a poor way, your kids may start using drugs or people go into insane projects. But it would be nutty to presume that all kinds of misfortune are generated from willful choices, or that the one who makes the choice is most often the one who has to suffer. The banking crisis gives you sacks full of proof: the banks that are pulled down are not the ones who have made the most lousy transactions to begin with, but the ones where the crap ended up, because many kinds of business lead to secondary transactions, futures or insuring that can be very hard to break off.

So banks like Merrill Lynch end up with bad (and hastily written?) papers and obligations that represent business that was generated some place else. In theory, we should let all those fall, and Fannie and Freddie first of all, but in reality, that's not a path that you can take without breaking down society and worsening it all.

I do think there is a kidn of universal human right not to live in detitute onditions, not to have to die early or suffer unneeded, wasteful diseases. That's not to say that everyone has a right to free care at the most expensive clinics or that the presence of diseases is a negation of humanity. It's an expression of where we want to go.

Taxes? yes, you could make it voluntary to be joining or standing outside, but countries where basic health care insurances are fully voluntary (like the USA) invariably have a large chunk of people who are not able to get on the ladder (same with houses). The costs of actually getting an insurance may not always seem prohibitive, but the difficult part is getting the free money to ease past the bump in an existence where you're always scrounging, always pulling and squeezing to make ends meet somehow - with low wages or being on the dole, or no means at all.

It's no accident that poor people are the ones who get the really grave diseases; they don't have the money to go to regular health controls, to eat in a nourishing way or to see a doctor when something seems suspicious. Taxes are really the only way to get all on board - the state funds don't always have to carry the full costs but using taxes as a grounding for public health is the superior way to create an overall health care system.

[gagged_Louise]

Just adding that some people go from disease to disease, and the illness keeps them from really getting a job or realizing their gifts. I don't see how that could count as "a just outcome of what they deliberately chose to do" at some junctures in their life. The costs of actually getting them free of it, rstoring a decent health for them and their kids, may be minute compared to what it will cost if they are forced to live off crime or simply the working life they are not able to bring to society.

[his_girl_l]

I live in a country with free universal healthcare, for which i am incredibly grateful, especially since becoming a mother.

The problem with government funded healthcare is that it easily becomes a bottomless pit. You can always spend more. Science is constantly discovering new treatments and drugs, and every one of them is of vital importance to the people they can help. Hospitals can always be improved, more staff will always help.... the list goes on. What was considered a complete health system a generation ago is very basic compared to the system we have now. The costs grow yearly, and once committed to the principal of universally accessible healthcare they will always continue to grow.

I think the question that needs to be asked is "Is healthcare delivered to most of the population more effectively through taxation and government provision or through a privately operated user pays system?"

And i think that the answer varies from society to society. While government provided health care works relatively well in a small country like Australia (21 million people) it seems to become less efficient in larger countries such as Britain, with it's notoriously troubled NHS.

I guess what i am trying to say is that being committed to accessible health care for all doesn't necessarily mean a commitment to any particular ideology, be it free marketism, socialism, or anything in between.

[gagged_Louise]

Yes I agree L_27 that the "bottomless pit" of rising possibilities is often a threat to a general public health care system. Sixty years ago old people (in particular) were snuffed out in a week by pneumonia and rarely spent many months in a hospital ward or lived till 90 with a frail health (on the other hand we don't have to keep up TB sanatories in the way they did back then - I hear TB is making return inroads though). Prolonged cancer therapy barely existed a few generations back, nor did core organ transplantations and heart surgery. The more that medicine learns to do, and the longer people will live, in general, the more hospitals and elderly care risk being weighed down.

But I don't think that's a good argument against at least a solid and well-stocked groundwork of public health, free and funded mainly by taxes, to make sure that people donm't have to keep a 30.000 bucks fund as a safety net for common diseases, prescription drugs or surgery (prescription drugs are not free under public health systems either, they just receive a price cut by state subvention). Whatver the textbook tells you, many hard working families can't keep a bin of fifty grand for illnesses and other costs stashed away over time.

[damyanti]

Universal health care is affordable health care coverage which is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region. These programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both. The US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others. Universal health care is provided in most developed countries, in many developing countries, and is the trend worldwide. Its one of those things that marks how civilized a certain society is.

While the US government provides health insurance for veterans, the elderly, poor and disabled, there has yet to be a system that ensures coverage for every citizen. In the U.S., health insurance is typically provided to workers and their families by their employers. The U.S. government offers a tax reduction to employers offering health benefits in what is referred to as a 'tax expenditure'. The exclusion of employer contributions for medical care amount to the nation's top tax expenditure at $102.3 billion in 2004, which is nearly twice as much as the next highest tax expenditure- mortgage interests.

According to the OECD 2003 Health Data report, the United States tops the OECD ranking for overall health care spending at $4900 per capita in 2001, more than twice the OECD average of $2100. Though more than half of the cost is private funding, the U.S. government spends the most out of all OECD countries (except Norway, Luxembourg and Iceland) per capita even though only about 25 percent of the population is insured through public programs compared with 90 per cent in other OECD countries. I suggest to my American friends, especially those who oppose Universal health care, to read this twice....and in case you need translation.....it means, you got screwed.

There are many different ways to organize universal health systems. A single-payer health care system is typically a government-run organization that collects and pays out all health care costs. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance: "Compulsory health insurance" and "Private." The French health care system, rated the best in the world by the World Health Organization, has private and public health care providers and universal access funded by taxes and co-fees. The United States is the only developed nation without a universal health care system.

Proponents of a universal health care system point to the global trend of industrialized countries with providing health care. Administrative costs would be drastically decreased. The U.S. government spends more than all other countries per capita without receiving proportional health benefits and more than 47 million people are uninsured.

Opponents cite that income taxes would increase and private insurance companies may be put out of the health care administrative business, a result that would fly in the face of laissez-faire capitalism the US was founded upon. Considering how inane their argument is, my guess is opponents are those who are selfish ie. “it cant happen to me” types, those who form their judgement on hearsay and heads of extortionist insurance companies.

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance. The data about the number of U.S. residents without health insurance varies between 44 and 48 million people. Many of those people lost their jobs — and their insurance — because of the struggling economy. For some, insurance was lost when double-digit premium increases caused employers to stop offering coverage. Some of the uninsured opted not to enroll in coverage offered by employers, as the amount taken from their paychecks to cover the cost rose.

The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

Dr Christopher Murray, Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. says: "Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are under- utilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual's basic rights to health."

The impact of failures in health systems is most severe on the poor everywhere, who are driven deeper into poverty by lack of financial protection against ill- health.

"The poor are treated with less respect, given less choice of service providers and offered lower- quality amenities," says Dr Brundtland. "In trying to buy health from their own pockets, they pay and become poorer."

One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible. WHO says that it is better to make "pre-payments" on health care as much as possible, whether in the form of insurance, taxes or social security.

While private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%), in India, families typically pay 80 percent of their health care costs as "out-of- pocket" expenses when they receive health care.

"It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance," says Dr Frenk. "Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich, (and that includes the US, “the greatest nation in the world”, shame on you)."

In many countries without a health insurance safety net, many families have to pay more than 100 percent of their income for health care when hit with sudden emergencies. In other words, illness forces them into debt.


I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme! :icon176:

[lucy]

I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme!
Exactly my feelings. Especially in a country like America, which often displays itself as the spearhead of civilization (at least that's the impression i sometimes get in Europe), that shouldn't be a question. There are different ways to provide all people with health care, so far noone has proven to be the perfect one.

However, spending almost 15% of the gross national product on health care, how America does, and leaving out a substantial part of the population seems to be a very bad deal.
Those 15% are, btw, by far the highest percentage worldwide, second is Switzerland with about 13% of the gnp.

The discussion that needs to be led is not IF everybody should have access to health care, but WHAT should be paid for. Because obviously it won't be possible to pay everything medically possible for everybody. And even less so in the future, with life extectancy in most of the countries which are members of the OECD (not in America, though, where life expectancy is actually sinking. That's some food for thought too...)

[lucy]

One more thing: There are middle ways between free universal and privately funded health care systems.
In Switzerland, every person pays the same amount for his health insurance. Insurance companies are private enterprises. Poor people get a refund which is paid directly to the insurance company (otherwise it would probably be spent on booze, babes and cars). It works pretty well, however, the costs are on the rise, so there needs to be a strong mechanism to keep people from running to the doctor with every cold, expecting to get the best possible treatment for almost no money.

And as various others have said before me: It's bound to get more expensive with people getting older and with treatments getting more expensive.
My Master works in the research division of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, and according to him in the future drugs will become extremely accurate to deal with a specific health problem, but also extremely expensive.
For example, Roche has built a whole factory in Germany to produce one single drug that is very effective in treating breast cancer. Unfortunately, only about a third of breast cancer victims respond to this drug. I don't remember what he said what a treatment costs on average, but it was more than i earn in two years.
But then again, i'm heavily underpaid and work only part time :D

[his_girl_l]

Just a quick note on prescriptions in response to gagged_Louise - in Australia low income earners (and the thresholds are pretty generous, especially for families with children) get prescriptions for a flat fee of $4.90 each (which isn't very much, it's even less in American dollars). That pays for administering the scheme and the government pays for the drugs.

Not quite free, but anyone can afford it.

And pensioners (not just aged, but disabled, single parents etc) get a fortnightly pharmacutical supplement, i think it is the cost of 2 prescriptions.

I've always found the public health system here fantastic.

[Tufty]

Just a quick note on prescriptions in response to gagged_Louise - in Australia low income earners (and the thresholds are pretty generous, especially for families with children) get prescriptions for a flat fee of $4.90 each (which isn't very much, it's even less in American dollars). That pays for administering the scheme and the government pays for the drugs.

Not quite free, but anyone can afford it.

And pensioners (not just aged, but disabled, single parents etc) get a fortnightly pharmacutical supplement, i think it is the cost of 2 prescriptions.

I've always found the public health system here fantastic.

Here in UK, those on low income or claiming state benefits don't pay for precriptions. People suffering from certain illnesses are also exempt from charges

The thing that makes the prescriptions here expensive is that they make a charge of £7.10 per ITEM (US$11.12) Now, I usually have 12 different drugs prescribed each month...so you can see how it mounts up!

There is the option to pay a yearly fee of £102 / US$159.70 (which is what I do) for a 'pre-payment certificate' to show that I have paid the fee and have to show it when I go to collect my medicines from the pharmacy.

[angela_shy]

Here in UK, those on low income or claiming state benefits don't pay for precriptions. People suffering from certain illnesses are also exempt from charges

The thing that makes the prescriptions here expensive is that they make a charge of £7.10 per ITEM (US$11.12) Now, I usually have 12 different drugs prescribed each month...so you can see how it mounts up!

There is the option to pay a yearly fee of £102 / US$159.70 (which is what I do) I receive a card to show that I have paid the fee and have to show it when I go to collect my medicines from the pharmacy.

hi Tufty :wave:
in Wales prescriptions are free... i have a spare room if you want :)

[Tufty]

LOL thanks Angela :)

Actually, was just reading about free prescriptions in Wales.

[angela_shy]

^^ yw

actually we don't even have to visit the doc - just ask a pharmacist for simple medicines
plus we have nice beaches and shopping... good place to live, eh?

[Tufty]

Do they have new hearts as well? :D

[angela_shy]

perhaps that would be expecting too much of the poor pharmacist lol

[MMI]

Who says pharmacists are heartless?

I agree with Tufty, the free prescription rules in England are crazy (and I remember paying 2s. 6d. (12 1/2 p) for prescriptions in the good old days, regardless of how many items were on it).

I had a serious illness once - on drugs for the rest of my life. I had to buy a pre-payment certificate. More recently my wife also became seriously ill and she is now on drugs for ten years at least. She has to buy a prepayment certificate.

(Even so, the cost of a prepayment certificate represents a huge subsidy from the state.)

Then I got another illness - the kind you get when you're fat and lazy, the kind you can put off or avoid if you eat sensibly and look after yourself just a little. Boom! I get free drugs forever - not just for that illness, but for anything else I want to go down with too. Where's the logic?

================================================== =======

Now, reverting to Muskan's post and his reference to a video clip on YouTube, I can do no better than copy a couple of the comments made by people who watched that disgusting, one sided clip:


ArtificialCleverenAI said: "Nice agenda-driven expose of an apparent socialised healthcare failure. From my own personal experience within the UK and France, serious cases are referred to consultants within days. Having had a relative survive cancer, upon suspicion of the disease they were in specialist care within four days. It's a matter of record that the UK's health system is orders of magnitude better than the US's by survival count for such diseases and operations."


And povmcdov said: "In the NHS (UK) all patients with a suspected cancer are referred to a specialist within two weeks. The rural county I live in has at least 5 MRI machines covering 800K people. No waiting weeks for scans here. As a healthcare professional I would feel safer in the NHS than in the local private hospitals. If you want to skip the insignificant wait the NHS hospitals also provide private care, but you get the same treatment.

The NHS is not perfect but I would take it over the US system anytime."

I would add that it is totally fallacious - a deliberate lie - to say that the Ontario system of healthcare has crumbled away, simply because one person was dissatisfied. And, to be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the people featured were put up to say what they did. People will lie for money, you know.

I don't know, but I've been told that the Canadian system is even better than UK's NHS.


However, SCGATOR2001 posted the following (on YouTube): "But make sure the GOVERNMENT stays out of your health care or else we'll get this OR WORSE! Government is the problem, not the solution. The gov't made mortgage companies lend to risky people (led by ACORN and the like) and they "almost" wrecked the economy.

Get them in US Healthcare and it will be more of the same. The gov't will make sure NONE of us have decent healthcare. That's socialism, CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!"

I think those remarks are echoed above by people here who oppose free healthcare. A few points then. If government is the problem, and it's staying out of healthcare, then surely it should get involved.

But that's just me being flippant.

What I don't understand is why Americans think that their Government will deliberately try to provide the lowest possible standard of healthcare, when you only have to look at the countries that do have subsidised or free systems to know that governments do their damnedest - and for the most part, with considerable success - to provide a first rate health service.

If they are right about the American system of government - and Americans should know, I suppose - then don't vote for politicians who say they will make sure only the richest will get medical treatment when they need it. Vote for someone who cares about his country and his countrymen's health, and who will promise to make free healthcare work.

And as for saying, "I give to charity, that's enough," let me remind you that there are very few social needs anywhere in the world at any time in history that have been satisfied by charitable donations. Often, social needs can only be met by the state. In my view, healthcare is one such need.

Free (or subsidised) healthcare is the jewel in the crown of any caring society, socialist, capitalist, or mixed. The absence of such a system tells me the society doesn't care at all. To turn the original question round, is it the case that each country gets the healthcare system it deserves?

[denuseri]

As a former med/surg floor nurse I have seen first hand our own proplems with health care and heard about different issues in systems some of my peers were much more familuar with.

Most of which were here in the states practicing medicine, but many were from countires other than the United States such as Canada, The Phillipines, England, and Mexico in paticular.

We had in our few off hours, and somtimes while charting, many many conversations about this topic.

The only conclussion we could ever mutually agree too was:

That regardless of how the system was set up, or which system was used in our respected countries of origin, (socialist, captitailist, comunist what have you) it basically had a lot about it that sucked.

I have heard and seen the insurance companies and lawyers ruin what was the best health care system in the world for a while. I have heard how other systems are so good on the news etc etc, I have however never heard that from my fellow nurses that came from those systems.

Am I for universial health care?

Yes. I wish we could help everyone that ever got sick or needed medical attention with the best possible care accross the board.

Do I see it happening anytime soon if ever?

Unfortunately no.

It is sad, but I believe too many will stand in it's way, not just individuals that fear the governements involvement in thier medical system, but also the governments themselves etc etc, it would litterally require a world wide con-census to provide heath care of a certian standard for all equally regardless of economic provision. Fully cooperating consensus mind you. Something we cant even get a few people to agree to on an internet chat site, let alone the world.

In fact my only hypotheisis as for how this would possibly work would be through the organiazation of a seperate opererating entity that is divorced from societal influeneces that all governements and people submit thier authority too regarding the consideration of rescources and disposition of medical dispensation including legality of medical issues and cost etc etc,.

I sadly wonder if it will ever be within our organzational abilities as a species to preform such a task.

The ideal of universal health care is a grande utopian ideal to strive for, but not yet within our grasp in a practical sence to achieve at this time.

[Thorne]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

[MMI]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

...

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

Scaredey-cat nonsense, Thorne. Why do you assume free (well, paid-for by taxes, actually) health treatment will be so inferior that your rulers will avoid it? Why do you pefer a system that cures its sick only if they can pay for it? Over here in the UK, many of our "rulers" do use the NHS. And many don't. The reasons they usually cite for not using the NHS (especially the left-wing politicians) include, they must avoid the waiting lists because they are "very important people", or they are using their freedom to choose, or because of the security risks. But no matter what, they have a vested interest in keeping the NHS going because they would be voted out of office if they didn't. Here, everyone has a right to the best healthcare possible, even if he is poor.

In the UK we have a private healthcare system as well as a state-run system. The "private" doctors are mostly NHS doctors moonlighting after a hard day's work in the state-owned hospital. Often they use NHS facilities to supply their "private" services because the private sector cannot afford them, or it's not commercially viable to purchase them.

Staffing is worse in the private system, too, because, once the doctors have gone home, only a few nurses are left. If there's an emergancy at night, doctors have to be called in, or the patient taken to an NHS hospital, where there are doctors (if ony junior ones) available at all hours.

Private operations are usually only of the less complex kind because of the lack of facilities, and, perhaps, because it would be too dangerous to let a surgeon who has already been operating all day in one hospital loose on a paying patient in a private one. So the major operations are carried out by the NHS anyway.

When operations go wrong in a private hospital, the patient is frequently brought to an NHS hospital for corrective surgery. I doubt it ever happens the other way round.

NHS has its faults, like any other system - as denuseri points out, they all do. And in the majority of cases, the reason is funding, not training - although standards may vary a bit, not staffing, nor the will to heal. In the UK, funding problems have lowered the standard of healthcare considerably. Everything has to be costed now. We have dirty hospitals because we skimp on cleaners, some drugs are not available on the NHS because cheaper, less effective ones are available. The administration is top-heavy because the overpaid fat cats at the top are more intersted in their careers than in their patients. And lawyers are getting in on the act too, so more and more funds that could go into health care are lining solicitors' pockets instead. But we have considerable success too. In the US (so far as I know) you have superb facilities that even we Brits will travel to use if we have the money and the NHS can't deal with our problem. But there's the rub. We - and Americans - need money to be treated in the US system. Americans who don't have money, can rely on health insurance schemes. Except they are costly, and there are so many exclusions, such as, if you're likely to fall ill, you won't be covered. If you do fall ill, you won't be covered again. And whatever happens, you're only covered for so much. After that, I gather you have to rely on the government-funded or charitable systems that are no better than a third-world country would provide.

Isn't that a mark of shame for the world's richest country?

[Muskan]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

When they even fails to provide Food for All, how can they dream of something like Universal Health program?

Even Now people like the socialistic dystopian dreams.

Any Collective-Welfare program, be it American or British or Indian always fails because of the natural corruption collectivism causes.

[Muskan]

Isn't that a mark of shame for the world's richest country?

The recent economic turmoil is constantly proving that American "richness" is overhyped, and it was alluded by previous government's bid to keep printing dollars. Thats the Major reason of meltdown.

About corruption in America,



Fed refusing to say where the $2 trillian went
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY&refer=worldwide
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
...

[MMI]

Economic meltdown or no, it's still shameful that the world's richest nation has a third rate public heath care system.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with socialism. American fear of the concept is depriving its underprivileged citizens of a decent living while its wealthy capitalist czars gorge like parasites off them and their labours. Competition and free enterprise are mere shibboleths propounded by those who stand to benefit from them. They have no intrinsic value themselves. A state that co-operates with its citizens to provide the basic essentials of life is a much better ideal, even if that means the very rich have to pay more. What does it matter? Most of them got it by cheating or from inheritance anyway. Even in USA, there are very few who have "made it" without resorting to underhand methods at some time.

As for all welfare programmes being doomed to failure, name me one that has failed. And before you say "Britain's NHS" I would remind you that the NHS started on 5th July, 1948 and is still going strong. It is now the world's 3rd biggest employer - so not only does it provide a valuable health resource, but it has a fantastic economic contribution to make, too. It has its faults, but so does the US private care system, whose worst fault is declining to treat those who cannot afford it, while its medical insurers refuse to cover treatment of any condition they have had to pay out on before, or to price that cover out of anyone's reach.

I would mention that other welfare programmes were introduced in Britain at about the same time: unemployment benefit, old age pensions, industrial injuries benefits, and family allowances, to name a few. They are all valuable and they are all still in effect.

State services - even inefficient ones - win over individual wealth, private insurance or meagre charity almost every time. Dystopian dream? I think not: give that honour to extreme capitalism.



---- WOW!!! I've just noticed I can type the word "socialism" withpout getting edited out> Thanks to the people who made that happen! ----

[Thorne]

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with socialism. American fear of the concept is depriving its underprivileged citizens of a decent living while its wealthy capitalist czars gorge like parasites off them and their labours.

The problem with socialism, as I see it, is that you wind up with an underpriveleged class who feel that they deserve everything they can get without working for it. They become true parasites, sucking from the government teat, which is kept full by the hard work of the middle class. The wealthy, in any society, will always reap disproportionate rewards, but they generally provide at least some jobs. The welfare class provides nothing but more mouths to feed and strident calls for free everything.

[gagged_Louise]

The problem with socialism, as I see it, is that you wind up with an underpriveleged class who feel that they deserve everything they can get without working for it. They become true parasites, sucking from the government teat, which is kept full by the hard work of the middle class. The wealthy, in any society, will always reap disproportionate rewards, but they generally provide at least some jobs. The welfare class provides nothing but more mouths to feed and strident calls for free everything.

You're free to view people who don't own their house and almost never have the money to go abroad as white trash who show they've never had the guts to make it into the middle class, but quite often, where people are landing in terms of work, and how fast they'll take off, is limited by restraints they don't control themselves and cannot "vote with their feet" to avoid. Lousy schools, outdated models of work, lack of a billfold of useful connections or "getaway money" isn't stuff that people choose to live with, they may not ven be aware of it.

The idea that people who are rich always deserve it would be reasonable if folks like Bill Gates or Nelson Rockefeller had dug their riches out of the barren rock, just by using their own ingenuity and hard work. Of course they didn't: Bill Gates or Larry Page (Google) may be businessmen of genius but they would never have got very far if they had had to work in a "free" economy without powerful public programs for engineering and computer facilities, libraries and education (how would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs have assembled a team or formulated their ideas if they'd had to literally go door-knocking and putting in small ads for money gathered from delivering the morning papers, instead of being at home in, and allowed into, a business and research community that was around before they came along?)

Of course if you treat the "underclass" (in America often the descendants of black slaves or of illiterate farmers from Asia and eastern Europe) as parasites and dumbheads and block their way to the good future, they are likely to keep on being criminals, hustlers, shirkers and liars - at least some of them - because that's all they get the place to do and that's the image of them projected everywhere. But it doesn't say much about their real potential. It's shortsighted to think that people from South Gate, LA and people from the Hamptons start from nearly the same baseline when it comes to education, money, health and exercise - or ability to get advanced work and get on the career ladder.

[MMI]

Gagged Louise, whom I'm becoming more enthralled by with every post she makes, says it all. What more can I add?

There are leeches in the "lower" levels of all forms of society. But they are relatively few in number. As I said in another post, very few people actually want to be a burden on society, and those who are have usually fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and will do almost anything to get back on thier feet again as quickly as possible. Dole is rarely sufficient to give anyone much more than a basic standard of living, even in welfare states.

No. I'm sorry to say it, but people who reject the provision of social assistance to the needy on the basis that it encourages the indolent to demand more and give less are wilfully blinkered if not totally blindfolded, and argue out of selfishness rather than any morally defensible position.

I should also add that any society that loses its working classes will cease to exist much more quickly than if the middle classes disappeared. It would probably benefit from the loss of its upper/ruling classes, because it could easily replace the jobs they provided by forming co-operatives or state-owned corporations. But I'm not arguing for communism, simply social conscience in the form of a health service accesible to all who need it.

[Thorne]

You're free to view people who don't own their house and almost never have the money to go abroad as white trash who show they've never had the guts to make it into the middle class, but quite often, where people are landing in terms of work, and how fast they'll take off, is limited by restraints they don't control themselves and cannot "vote with their feet" to avoid. Lousy schools, outdated models of work, lack of a billfold of useful connections or "getaway money" isn't stuff that people choose to live with, they may not ven be aware of it.
It was never my intent to label these kinds of people as trash, white or otherwise. Sure, there are many people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are always on the bad end of every deal, unable to pull themselves up. And programs which help them, which give them the opportunities to get out of that rut can, and should be, of high priority in any society. But there are many who are more interested in what the government can give them rather than in learning what the government can do to help them build their lives. I have no problems with programs which teach people. I only question the efficacy of programs which give away benefits and priveleges to those who do not want to earn them and who will actively oppose anything which might force them to earn it.


The idea that people who are rich always deserve it would be reasonable if folks like Bill Gates or Nelson Rockefeller had dug their riches out of the barren rock, just by using their own ingenuity and hard work.
Rockefeller, of course, is one of those who inherited his wealth. While less impressive than someone who's earned it on his own, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Should we force people like that to give away all their money and start from the bottom? That's ridiculous!
But Bill Gates used existing infrastructure, the same kinds of things that anyone else could use, to identify a need, build a product to fulfill that need, market that product and create an empire from it. As far as I know, he didn't have any more to work with than anybody else could have access to, other than his own intelligence and abilities. Shall we condemn him because he was smart enough to recognize potential? Shall we strip him of his money, just because he did something we didn't think of? Also ridiculous.


It's shortsighted to think that people from South Gate, LA and people from the Hamptons start from nearly the same baseline when it comes to education, money, health and exercise - or ability to get advanced work and get on the career ladder.
Of course they don't start at the same baseline! And yet, there are many who manage to crawl out of the jungles of LA and become successful business men, or athletes, or even just good, hardworking middle class citizens. Sure, it takes more work than starting with money, and perhaps some lucky breaks. But it can be done. But if they're not willing to try, not willing to do the work, they will be stuck where they are, and they will teach their children to accept what they are, rather than work to make themselves better.

[voxelectronica]

Do people deserve universal health care? No.

People do NOT deserve medical coverage simply because they're alive and breathing. I as an individual have no obligation to keep another person alive and that is what my tax dollars would be going to. No one deserves the tax money I worked for, it's mine.

As you may be able to tell I'm a financial conservative... very conservative.

Regardless of if people DESERVE universal health care or not I do feel that as a country we have no reason to insure the health of all of our residence. As was pointed out, a healthy citizen is a working citizen.

I do *not* believe that the politicians in office can possibly do this without skimming off the top, taking their do's, being corrupt etc. Earmarks? seriously.

I believe in almost 100% privatized society. This is my *one* area that I believe should be socialized and it's not because my birth control cost me $50. It's because there is no reason why the poor in other countries should expect a healthier life than the middle class in this country. It's a matter of pride.

Also. I agree that most people don't want to FEEL like they are a drain on society but I think at this point (especially in American culture) there is an entire sect of our population who do not believe that's what they are. You have to first realize that you *are* a drain on society before you can feel some sort of remorse for that.

[gagged_Louise]

Most of this isn't going to be directly about health care or health spending but I'm taking the time to reply on some points from -mostly - Thorne's latest post because we're running into issues of social equality and the chances to realize your gifts in a modern society here, and these kind of underpin our reasoning about if public-funded health care.would be desirable or not.


Sure, there are many people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, are always on the bad end of every deal, unable to pull themselves up. And programs which help them, which give them the opportunities to get out of that rut can, and should be, of high priority in any society. But there are many who are more interested in what the government can give them rather than in learning what the government can do to help them build their lives. I have no problems with programs which teach people. I only question the efficacy of programs which give away benefits and priveleges to those who do not want to earn them and who will actively oppose anything which might force them to earn it.

Handing out money on a charity basis or earmarking small sums to be used for rent, food, children's allotments etc - while putting medical and education aid at a bare minimum - is one thing, empowering people to really get gping and kicking off the limitations of living in a chaotic, run-down neighbpurhood or having to accept working for 6 bucks an hour is another. You won't get poor people from the gutter to rise up by handing them fifty bucks a week and then keeping tabs on them every moment and treating them like they're stupids who are liable to toss away the cash on liquor or toys and then just ask for more, like they're children. The trend of policies in Amrica has been to push the wealth to the top - the finace crisis and the recession of late has made that really clear I think. And most American (or European) small businessers and artisans do not earn many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and are not in a position to expand their firms a lot. Joe the Plumber is not any plumber. ;)


Rockefeller, of course, is one of those who inherited his wealth. While less impressive than someone who's earned it on his own, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Should we force people like that to give away all their money and start from the bottom? That's ridiculous!
But Bill Gates used existing infrastructure, the same kinds of things that anyone else could use, to identify a need, build a product to fulfill that need, market that product and create an empire from it. As far as I know, he didn't have any more to work with than anybody else could have access to, other than his own intelligence and abilities. Shall we condemn him because he was smart enough to recognize potential? Shall we strip him of his money, just because he did something we didn't think of? Also ridiculous.

No, of course Mr. Gates isn't to be stripped of most of his money, it's a more interesting issue if he (or Microsoft) should be allowed always to set their own prices no limits and exploit their advantage - and that's why they got those hefty penalties from the European Union competition overseers.

Bill Gates and his likes were able to concentrate on computers from an early age - to take just Gates, the mothers' association at his school bought a computer for him and he was able to take time off from regular classroom hours getting acquainted with computing and software from his early teens onwards.

At thirteen [ca 1968] he enrolled in the Lakeside School, an exclusive preparatory school. When he was in the eighth grade, the Mothers Club at the school used proceeds from Lakeside School's rummage sale to buy an ASR-33 teletype terminal and a block of computer time on a General Electric (GE) computer for the school's students.[12] Gates took an interest in programming the GE system in BASIC and was excused from math classes to pursue his interest.
I doubt they'd have done that for a black pupil who was at the school as a free charity guest and whose dad was an assistant plumber. And Silicon Valley or Stanford University aren't places that came into being from a bunch of empty-hands geeks standing outside the fold of the established economy; that's just the legend. To give Gates added credit, I think he's very aware that one can't sit around and wait for the market's invisible hand to do the trick, he made that plain in a tv interview I saw recently.

The internet, too, has been helped massively by public spending both in America and Europe - departments of defense, CERN (where the html language was developed), university pc networks, state telephone companies, the space programmes which freed up lots of resources and forced engineers to take on new challenges of developing faster chips and btter signal capacities, and so on.

I see we're moving onto the "spreading the wealth" tag here. I was trying to avoid any general discussion about socialism, I'm not an ideological socialist and it seems many Americans simply throw together social liberals, social democrats and stalinists. Planned command economy isn't my rallying cry (though it's a delicious irony that the private spending spree economy of the Bush era ended in the biggest socialization moves of modern American history: the buy-up of Fannie and Freddie and the bail-outs of banks, possibly of the big three car companies and then what...)

I'd agree with MMI that the American fear of everything that could remotely be called "socialism" is a leftover from the 19th century, and it's used as a tool by the fat cats who stand to gain from a highly moralizing attitude to money, a belief that society is about the survival of the fittest. Most companies today don't handle their budget planning as if it were a household budget, they plainly assume that they can get money - public money, by loans or from risk investors - if they need to expand. So it's not really about clawing a share of the market with what you got from the start, rather about what you can corner through alliances with other people, other companies. If they'd all started in a garage some of them would have foundered very soon, no matter how good the ideas.

It's an illusion I think that you can have a society that's 85% middle class. Neither the pure free market nor a state bolstered by ebullient welfare programs (which, by the way, isn't exactly how it looks in Sweden these days either) will lift everybody into the gilded middle class where your kids feel they can become anything, you have a year's wages on the bank, a stack of cd's and dvd's and a thriving pensions savings account. You seem to assume that the free market will perform that feat, and if some people don't get into the middle class it's a sign they were soft bags and deserve to be looked down upon or stepped on. Look, any modern society has a large working class, it's just that they don't always work in assembly-line factories or sweatshops..



Sure, it takes more work than starting with money, and perhaps some lucky breaks. But it can be done. But if they're not willing to try, not willing to do the work, they will be stuck where they are, and they will teach their children to accept what they are, rather than work to make themselves better.

Yes, there are leeches in any social class, or simply people desperate to cling to what they have. There's lots of children of the rich who take it for granted that they inherently deserve their handbags and jewellery, their designer clothes and their expensive education because they were born into it or because they think "Dad started from the bottom and now he's a CEO - and I've inherited his stamina so I have a right to that kind of respect". I'll just say Paris Hilton, she truly gave this arrogance a face when she got nailed for drunk driving and was sentenced to a brief prison term. There's many other examples.

George W Bush is reputed to have told a professor at Harvard Business School in the mid-1970s who showed the film The Grapes of Wrath to his students - he did this in order to show an angle of the 1930s depression that he realized many of them might not know from their own home background: "Why are you showing this commie movie? Look, people are poor because they're lazy!" Point taken. Of course the hobos in the film could have cut their beards and got a job, or if it were today, their children could have enrolled with the army and then had some of their college years paid for. So?


Also. I agree that most people don't want to FEEL like they are a drain on society but I think at this point (especially in American culture) there is an entire sect of our population who do not believe that's what they are. You have to first realize that you *are* a drain on society before you can feel some sort of remorse for that.

Excuse me vox, what kind of a height would that kind of condamnation be issued from? "Many people need" to have it rubbed into their minds that they "are a drain on society"?? I don't see what gives a corporate CEO, a senator, a US president, or even a bishop,a wife or a "staid middle American man" the right to spit people in the face like that. And for sure, some of the gist of those words was aimed at people you do not know. Everyone of us has a right to choose whom we want to mix with (though not all are in a *position* to make that choice freely, it's often about money and work) but there's no general right I think to just heave slop on a group of people you don't know.

[lucy]

Do people deserve universal health care? No.

People do NOT deserve medical coverage simply because they're alive and breathing. I as an individual have no obligation to keep another person alive and that is what my tax dollars would be going to. No one deserves the tax money I worked for, it's mine.
Of course it's not your money. If it were yours, it would be on your bank account.


I believe in almost 100% privatized society. This is my *one* area that I believe should be socialized and it's not because my birth control cost me $50. It's because there is no reason why the poor in other countries should expect a healthier life than the middle class in this country. It's a matter of pride.
If it's a matter of pride, then your pride is taking a bad beating right now. Because the poor in many other country within the OECD ARE in fact living a healthier life than the middle class in America.
Oh, did i mention that life expectancy and average body height (two of the easiest to measure and very informative indicators of wellbeing of a society) in America actually are sinking, whereas they are still growing in most other OECD countries?

[Muskan]

Of course it's not your money. If it were yours, it would be on your bank account.


it was his/her money before government confiscated it from him and termed that loot as TAX.

He was forced to sacrifice because he has the ability to earn more than others.

Such sacrifices can bring doom alone but no good.

[lucy]

Well, it's more or less agreed upon that governments need money (of course there's much debate about how much and how to get it and even more about how to spend it, tho. And those debates are necessary.)

If you can't agree with that, well, then you're living in the wrong world. Sorry, can't help you there.

[lucy]

[I]
Such sacrifices can bring doom alone but no good.
As far as i know taxing is not new, i bet there were taxes in ancient Babylon already. So, what about doom? Where? When? Did the whole world miss it's doomed for the last 5000 years?
Or is it just doom, but never doomsday? Then it wouldn't be that bad, i guess, since we live with it for the last 5 millennia.

[Thorne]

Well, it's more or less agreed upon that governments need money (of course there's much debate about how much and how to get it and even more about how to spend it, tho. And those debates are necessary.)

If you can't agree with that, well, then you're living in the wrong world. Sorry, can't help you there.

I agree, governments need money. And, while taxing isn't the only way to get it, it's better than outright looting. Not much better, but....

What I would like to see is for the taxpayer to get more say about how that money is spent. Sure, some has to go to defense. And some has to go to government salaries. And there are all kinds of other necessary areas where the money absolutely has to go. But there are also a lot of expenditures which are both unnecessary and undesirable, at least by the average tax payer. I certainly don't want to see my tax dollars being used to bribe foreign officials, regardless of who they are.

So why can't they include an optional questionnaire in the income tax statements we must file, and let the taxpayer distribute that discretionary portion of his tax dollars? So I can, for example, have more of my tax money go to parts of the budget which I deem more important, rather than to paying some so-called artist for pissing on a canvas. Or instead of paying some unwed junkie mother of four an allowance so she can buy another rock of crack. Or instead of giving money to a corporation which didn't have the brains to handle its own finances, and will likely not be able to handle its finances after getting the money.

Perhaps then we'll see more money going to what's really important. And if you think universal health care is important, then you could allocate more of your tax dollars to that.

Sorry for going off on a rant. I don't want to hijack this thread.

[gagged_Louise]

So why can't they include an optional questionnaire in the income tax statements we must file, and let the taxpayer distribute that discretionary portion of his tax dollars? So I can, for example, have more of my tax money go to parts of the budget which I deem more important, rather than to paying some so-called artist for pissing on a canvas. Or instead of paying some unwed junkie mother of four an allowance so she can buy another rock of crack. Or instead of giving money to a corporation which didn't have the brains to handle its own finances, and will likely not be able to handle its finances after getting the money.

Perhaps then we'll see more money going to what's really important. And if you think universal health care is important, then you could allocate more of your tax dollars to that.

Imagine the torrent of lawsuits from citizens vs the state that kind of model would produce! I don't want to think about it. On every level - county, city, state, federal - the state would fall prey to a million lawsuits from people who showed their "this is what I want my taxes to go to" cards from an election - not necessarily the last one - and claiming "my money hasn't been spent on this though you claim it was, you diverted it or you shirked the instructions - I refuse to pay for such and such,and I won't pay any more taxes for now until it's straightened out". And class actions and campaigns by churches and trade unions too, or even the mayorate of a city suing the state it's located in (if we suppose it's the USA). It would cripple any kind of political leadership or political negotiations.

In a general way, it would also reduce the citizen to a customer, choosing tasty alternative titbits for their own wallet - and a customer can be bought or bribed by the kind of deals that a politician - or somebody who isn't a politician, but clearly affiliated with the political world, like a general, a bishop or an influential businessman - would promise. If everyone decides their own peronal tax targets, the people become quite corruptible, because the election becomes stuff to buy and choose.

I'm not saying people don't vote from their long-term economic interests, but at least they mostly don't vote their leading men from the point of view that "he'll be very good as a personal business partner to me and other people I know".

I remember someone said in August that the looming bailout of Fannie and Freddie could not likely take place before the elections, because once it had happened, it would put the entire people - most of them, everyone who had a housing loan or who directly or indirectly owned bank or industry shares - in a sort of client position to the person - not chosen yet - who would be the next president: the guy they'd vote on. Now as both Obama and McCain supported the bailouts it didn't come to that - people did not feel their wallets were directly on the voting table, in the sense of who would promise the best conditions for this issue - but I still think it was a valid point.

[icey]

double post!

[icey]

it's always amazed me that the richest most powerful country in the world charges everyone for medical help even those that cant afford it!
I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.
ok, i can appreciate what you're saying but and here's hoping it will never happen, you hit on hard times you have zilch and one of your loved ones or yourself needs treatment? perhaps serious and costly treatment, would you still have the same opinion?
and rather than argue that that would be different because you've previously always worked payed taxes etc therefore you've earned it...imagine you've been brought up in a life/world that never gave you any chance, born disabled or a million other things and you never had chance to earn a living pay taxes etc...then what? would you be less deserving simply because of circumstances? or would you be glad of that ''lethal government''
hell our nhs system may be under funded and might f**k up sometimes but if we didnt have it then my sister would have died when she was 11 and a few other people i know would either be dead or extremely ill (myself included lol) oh and yep my family have always worked and paid their taxes and ni!
im sorry but thats something i think the US does need to seriously think about and update.
at the risk of causing an uproar, im curious and this is a serious questionas i really dont know how the system works, do those who choose to join forces and fight in wars and get injured have to pay for their own medical care?? and please note i say those who CHOSE ...because i will be totally honest in my book it s sooo wrong and unjust if people CHOOSE to physically or mentally endanger themselves for a living and get paid pretty well for doing so get free healthcare in a system that doesnt normally work that way.

[bellelapine]

One of the massive problems that come from programs such as this is that people who are in true need are often the first ones denied such. It goes to those who never attempt to make out a living, who never try to scratch a way out of the gutter simply because they don't make any money nor ever have.
Case in point. My mother had a stroke last year. She has busted her ass for years (as has my father), paid her taxes and I had thought maybe paid her dues. She is disabled on her right side and has numerous other health issues now that prevent her from working. It took A YEAR for them to achieve any help whatsoever. And even then she had to take a psychiatric evaluation, a physical, a second opinion, a physical therapist's opinion, a 'work-ability' evaluation, ect. Now tell me why is it that programs that are put into place to help those in these dire situations get told things like "Oh I'm sorry your husband makes 1200 a month, your income is too high." Yet those who have never contributed a dime to society get handed money and a place to live (my parents were evicted the month after my Mother's stroke) because they opened their legs or because they were born in a bad area?
Why should my taxes go to people who depend on the altruistic beliefs of the populace when I can better put that money to those who get shafted? Or a savings account to prepare for my own illness or disability in the future?
If you're going to have programs to 'save the poor' why not have the programs be spread equally across the people who need it? Not tell them that I'm sorry Divorice your husband of 24 years and we'll talk. Not tell them, I'm sorry you're the wrong colour for assistance (My mom heard that one too).
This is very obviously a touchy subject to me.

[gagged_Louise]

bellelapine, do you seriously think that people who are genuinely poor do not sometimes get treated just as shittily as your mother? To turn your qúestion around: why should people who have tried hard to find a way out of a mess they did not choose themselves - bad state schools, closed circles of getting a decent job, illness - have to pay for the occasional cheating and hustling by some anonymous folks they have never met, but who happen to be living in the same kind of places and have more spacious consciences?

Unfortunately you can't sell yourself today - or begin to reinvent yourself - by saying "look, I have tried so hard for years and I have actually kept my nose just above the water, though the career path that I wanted and trained for hasn't got started yet". That kind of 'neat threadbare powerty' just isn't appreciated today, not in a world of flash wealth and celebs waving gold chains, furs, credit cards and diamond rings.

I don't have any trouble understanding why ghetto kids feel the glam gangster is a more inspiring role model than a dogged factory worker (soon unemployed and without medical insurance for his crumbling joints) or their 40-year old mom who just barely gets to pay the rent and keep them clothed - and who looks a bit haggard and ten years older than she actually is. You get nowhere today by trying to show off a facade of neat propriety and zero ability to break your own niches. And to achieve some lucky breaks and show off your talent often takes money. For better or worse, that's why people today, unlike in the 1940s, are not likely to accept the idea that keeping poor and proper but honest is all they should do.

[Thorne]

why should people who have tried hard to find a way out of a mess they did not choose themselves - bad state schools, closed circles of getting a decent job, illness - have to pay for the occasional cheating and hustling by some anonymous folks they have never met, but who happen to be living in the same kind of places and have more spacious consciences?

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

[Thorne]

As you can see from the above post, I'm getting more than a little peeved about this subject. It's something I've heard over and over for most of my life, and I'm tired of people defending other people who have done nothing to merit such a defense.

So I'm opting out of this thread. I'm sure I've upset a lot of people here, and if so I'm sorry.

[bellelapine]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

Then along comes a career politician (who's never had to pray that his paycheck would cover the bills, who never had to worry about stretching that little bit of ground beef to cover two meals, who never had to watch a family member die because of a lack of decent care) and tells me I have to pay for universal health care so the poor people can be saved.

Why save them? Let them die off naturally. Let them pay the price for their stupidity and for the stupidity of their parents. Why should my kids have to suffer because so much of my pay gets taken by the government to pay for lazy pricks who are only interested in their next fix?

If it were up to me there would be no government handouts except for those who have already proven their worth to society, the elderly who've worked their lives away to make a better world for their children. Need a handout? Ask the church, or the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army. That's what they do. And I don't have to support them in their futile actions. But don't ask for my help. I've gotten to where I am through my own hard work and the hard work of my parents, and their parents and their parents.

My ancestors came over here from central Europe with little of nothing to their names, not speaking the language (doesn't seem to be a problem anymore, here), without jobs and without help. Yet they managed to drag themselves up to a decent life, and to help their kids get started on an even better life. So don't tell me it can't be done! All it takes is hard work and determination. Something that government handouts can't provide.

Sir and I agree with you entirely. He would like to pass on His commendation to you and your family for understanding that there are no free rides in the world that only through hard work and honest labour (if labour is involved sometimes mental tasks can be trying as well) can you overcome obstacles.


Gagged_Louise : I have seriously been altruistic at times in my life only to have been told "You're the wrong colour for a scholarship"(despite having a 4.0 I wasn't needy enough), "Have a baby and we'll consider assisting you with your medical bills" (I had a tumor removed from my cervix). Now explain how in the hell anyone with half the brain I have or more of the brain than I have would TRY! if they are told...do this and you'll get it free? I've busted my ass my entire life so that people can pop out kids who will be taught that if they pop out a kid they can live for free too.
Yes somewhere every day someone is treated like shit. But not everyone you meet is worth respecting. Not everyone who cries they have repented, didn't have a chance or whatever their pitiful excuse may be worthy of anyone's help if they didn't actually try. Yeah I went to a shitty school...I went to a pretty damn shitty college (it lost it's accredation three times), but I struggled through and graduated. I got my diploma and I've moved into a better situation than my parents lived in. But I worked hard. I had parents who educated me that nothing was free and I'd have to scrape my knuckles if I wanted to get out of the dirt. I didn't take the handout, I wasn't even in the running for handouts based on how the government works.

If someone is legitimately disabled sure. I hope like hell they are getting all the government assistance they can possibly get. But when the day comes that I go to WalMart to put things on lay away for Christmas just so I can afford that Barbie castle for my daughter, and people on welfare are handing over cash and wearing so much bling my eyes hurt....there's a serious problem. And it's not just with universal healthcare.

[voxelectronica]

I'm with Thorn on this. I lived a better part of my life in and out of poverty. I knew my mother starved to keep me fed as best she could while she was working two jobs. Meanwhile my sister was running every scam in every government cheese play book so she didn't have to work so she could go get high with her friends, while my mom and i watcher her kid. which eventually turned into two kids.

The projects... I lived there. Children i plaid with are dead from drugs, gang violence, or in prison. Some of them never made it to their teens. Some of them left and are doing great things. There is a line, there is a difference. Those who left came from the parents who worked hard. Those children understood that there are people who have no understanding of work is.

There is a culture in this country that feels that is okay to take hand outs. That it's okay to do nothing. That it's okay to work the system and it's larger than this "small percent". I've seen it, I've lived it, I'm related to it. They don't see it is a helping hand, as a temporary situation. They see it as what they deserve. That's their attitude. That it's deserved.

Are there people out there who work HARD even though they are on assistance? yes. Are they still contributing? yes. but this idea that it's only a rogue person who is abusive is silly. It's not an issue of how they feel it's an issue of how they're taught. I'm not on any assistance. My sister still is and her children are. When you are raised seeing your parents do something without remorse you will do it too without remorse.

I don't say this from any height. I say this as a girl that makes 9.00 an hour who takes public transit to work. whose bank account was over drawn from her birth control. I've been to a well fare office in the past 6 months and I STILL donate money. I STILL volunteer. When there are generations of people who have been on well fare and who get their nails done... yeah I think that's a real issue.

[gagged_Louise]

Thorne: sorry but we don't live in the 19th century anymore - the immigration policies of the United States, and the amount of land, or easy work (factory, shoeshining, farmhand or house maid) you could find just by passing Ellis Island, to single out just those two things, have changed radically since then. Nothing is easier than saying "it worked in my great-great-grandfather's day so it must still be like that now".

[Ladymad]

You know, I get tired of these kinds of arguments. "She didn't have any chance!" "It's not his fault that drugs are his only way out!" "They never got a break!"

I honestly don't care! It's not my fault they're in the situation they are in. I didn't force their parents to breed like rabbits when they didn't have two nickles to rub together. I don't trash the schools they attend, or the apartments they're living in. So why should I have to pay for their problems? I have my own problems to deal with.

After my mother passed away, I at age 16 was forced to care for my sisters, both younger than I, and my elderly grandmother, very sick with cancer. I couldn't go and get a job, because I needed to go to school - to better myself, to eventually get a university education and be able to support my family properly in the future. Thank god for Australia's bungled medicare system, which paid for my grandma's cancer treatments and the treatment my mother recieved before she died. Our PBS system ensured, through $5 for 3 months of birth control, that there would be no additions to our already struggling family.

If I had lived in the grand ole US of A, I wouldn't be at uni right now. My grandma would have been dead 12 years ago, the first time she was diagnosed with cancer. My mother, who had been chronically ill for the last 8 years of her life, would also have passed away much earlier. I would never be able to afford healthcare because to pay for what I needed at the time to support my family, I would have needed to leave school and find a job. So I would have found menial work, which never would have given me any opportunity for any actual advancement, leaving me forever stuck at the bottom rungs of the society.

Americas healthcare and welfare system systematically destroy lives. Through the denial of fundamental human needs like healthcare or adequate welfare for those in need, America pushes people further down when they need help the most.

My life would be fucked if what had happened here had happened in America... To me, it would not be worth living.

[denuseri]

Actually I have seen people in simular or worse circumstances than what have been described right beside me in the classrooms at college completely on a free ride where I have to take off to work in a strip club between semesters to make enough money to pay tuition..

Our Governement hands out lots of money to the people that are willing to look for it.

But not so much if you have a half way decent job or your spouse does or you are not both considered a minority.

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.

[lucy]

I will fully agree our healthcare and social wellfare systems in all countires need to be re-worked.

But as I said before, after speaking to a lot of different health care proffessionals from a lot of different counties.......no one has it right yet.
You're definitely right on that, it appears as if America has it wrong the most, tho:
"Neue Zürcher Zeitung", November 20th, 2008 (sorry, didn't find a link to the online article, but it would be German anyway): US health care system now employs more people than the private industry and costs 16% of the gross national product.

That's a third more than the second most expensive health care system (Switzerland, 12% of GNP). And it still leaves out about 15% of the population.

So, to sum it up: America manages to have an extremely expensive health care system that doesn't even provide all it's citizens with basic health care. Could it be any worse?

[denuseri]

Yes it could, look at the majority of counties in the world where heath care isn't even an option unless it is provided by volunteers from other nations.

[lucy]

Yeah, ok, but then again, you don't want to compare "developed" countries like the US with, say, Burundi.

[denuseri]

Heath care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

[gagged_Louise]

Health care is needed world wide, not just in developed nations.

Yes, but the US is one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth, plus a massive producer of goods, services and science - and the American state certainly doesn't sit arms crossed when it comes to furthering business interests or the sanity of the economy (well, right now it's an issue of course how much you should do that at home, but...) Inasmuch as she has a right to tax her citizens under law, the US should be able to afford to care for the people who live there and work for her. Most advanced countries have free, public medical care with a decent level of ambition. The US is a standout here.

People dying early or getting crippled for life when that could easily be stalled is a huge waste to any country. It's not just about suffering, it's also about keeping up the economy and the power to defend yourself in the long run, and to make smart and strong people come moving in when they might as well go to India, Australia, France or Canada. I'm putting it like that, a bit utilist, because Thorne and others seem to insist that individual suffering, education or safe roads is nobody's business if you can't pay for it by yourself.

[MMI]

Why save them? Let them die off naturally.

People are stupid to be poor? Did I read that right?

Nazism has its place, I suppose, but in America?


I agree that there is no health system in the world that is perfect, and perhaps we can all learn from each other. However, where a nation knowingly denies medical assistance to virtually all of its needy for fear of accidentally providing succour to the dregs of society, then that nation is unspeakably selfish, spiteful and cruel.

TO BE IN NEED OF HELP DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU DO NOT DESERVE HELP.

We who advocate "universal" health care supported by taxation are not saying, let's give all the tramps, hobo's, spongers, cheats and liars a free ride at the expense of all the decent, hard-working, god-fearing citzens who know what a dollar is worth, but not what compassion is, we are saying, let's do our best to make sure everyone gets the medical treatment they need, rather than just the treatment they can afford.

Belapine's illustration makes the point for me (which may come as a surprise to her!). Her parents had worked hard and paid taxes in a society which doesn't take care of its citizens' well-being except in rigidly limited circumstances, means testing being part of the conditions for qualifying for help. As a consequence, when her parents needed help, they were denied it because they "earned too much".

If they had been UK citizens, they would have worked just as hard, and paid taxes too, some of which would have gone to the NHS. When her mother became ill (whether she was rich, poor or simply comfortable), she would have received all the help she needed without having to fear bankruptcy or impoverishment. And she wouldn't find herself surrounded by drug addicts, drunks and the work-shy on her ward either.

She might have been even better of under the French, Canadian, Austrian or some other system, I cannot say. But unless she lived in a place like Bangladesh or the Congo, she is unlikely to have been worse off than under the American system.


Final thought: I suspect America's government supported health programmes actually are used by the dregs of society more, because no-one else is allowed to.

[wmrs2]

I'm not big on these kinds of political wrangles, personally, but I do have a comment regarding governments taking over health care systems.

I won't trust any such takeover unless ALL government employees and, most especially, ALL elected officials are enrolled completely in the same system as everyone else must use. No special perks for fat-cat Congressmen, no private clinics for bureaucrats, no sweetheart prescription deals for anyone. Everyone gets treated the same. There are too many instances in this country, and especially in the communist countries, where the people who make the rules are exempt from them.

If I know that I'm getting the same level of care as a Senator, at the same cost, then I'll trust a government controlled system. Otherwise, it's just another panacea to help control the masses.

Thorne, there are many great remarks made on this thread but your remark has as great of merit as any. As you point out, as long as there is a political system in any country, there will be sweet heart deals for those in power. Of course, it is possible to live in a country where the poor are in power and the hard working wealthy land owners are hanged or beheaded. But that sounds a little extreme but it has happened.

Every time I think my mind is made up about universal health care, I hear a very logical opposing view to what I believe. The ant and the grasshopper, at first thought I would like to allow the grasshopper to starve, after all, he should have planned better for the winter. This applies to those who bought homes that they could not afford. I am willing to let them sleep on the streets at first;but like the ant, I feel sorry for them.

If it were possible to have utopia health care, I would be for it. Sense I don't think it is possible, I am against it. The health care we have is the best in the world. I planned for health care when I entered the job market at the level I was happy with. My insurance company just paid a $200,000 yearly health bill for me. If health care was totally a government monopoly, I am sure that I would be dead. So would millions of others like me also. I am happy that there was the freedom to plan for my health care instead of trusting to Joe politician. It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health care. We have the right to health care if we have the wisdom to search in pursuit of happiness but the fellow who drunk beer at the bar while I studied in college does not have this right by his own choice.

Don't get me wrong, I like grasshoppers but it is hard not to step on them when they are all over the floor. Sometimes you must simply sweep them out the door. Seriously, I don't know what course to follow. Thanks everybody for offering your opinions to us that don't know.

[wmrs2]

Economic meltdown or no, it's still shameful that the world's richest nation has a third rate public heath care system.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with socialism. American fear of the concept is depriving its underprivileged citizens of a decent living while its wealthy capitalist czars gorge like parasites off them and their labours. Competition and free enterprise are mere shibboleths propounded by those who stand to benefit from them. ............................

State services - even inefficient ones - win over individual wealth, private insurance or meagre charity almost every time. Dystopian dream? I think not: give that honour to extreme capitalism.



---- WOW!!! I've just noticed I can type the word "socialism" withpout getting edited out> Thanks to the people who made that happen! ----
At first light you give a good argument. Here is where we differ some what. First the word socialism is a bad word. We do not have a third rate public health system. You overstate your position in favor of spouting the dialectic which allows you to use less real facts. Down with Karl Marx.

The fact is that we have a lot of socialism in America. Where do get off referring to "extreme capitalism." There are counties that do have extreme socialism and I choose not to live there. We have a measure of universal health care. Every county in every state has a health department where the poor can have health services. Other than that, it is the right of every capitalist to pursue the survival of the most fit. It is from the population of the most fit that all great advancements is health science comes. Water down the most fit with socialism and you'll see how fast we do fall to the bottom of the technology race in medicine, earth sciences, and social growth. Capitalism continues to be the bread and butter of the American way. Let's improve our health care but let's do it with capitalism rather than socialism.

[mkemse]

My only question on Universal Health Care for all is 2 fold
Children need it, they can't afford it themselves since they do not work or can't work do to age
The other half is the Governement always has said that it is too expensive to ffer it to everyone
Tax Cigartettes or Liguor, ect We do ont have the Money for Universal Heaklth Care , But we ALWAYS seem to have money to help rebuld other nations, or help other countries fincialy, why not use that money to Pay For OUROWN helath Care, take care of ourselfs before we take care of others
I have on issue with the UnitedStates helping other Nations or Country, but only if it does not effect what we as American desve the right to have, if we are denied for money reasons then take the money we are going to send over seas to rebuild and use that
Every Child in this Country should have some type of medical insurance

[Thorne]

It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health care.

I would have to say it's a bad idea to surrender your freedoms in terms of anything!

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

The health care we have is the best in the world. I planned for health care when I entered the job market at the level I was happy with. My insurance company just paid a $200,000 yearly health bill for me. If health care was totally a government monopoly, I am sure that I would be dead.
.

A couple of questions

1) How do you measure how good our health care system is; infant mortality? life span? What metrics are you using to back up your declaration that this system is the best?

2) If you lost your job and ran out of COBRA coverage how would that $200k health bill be paid?

[mkemse]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I am not sure what surrendering my freedoms had to do with health insurance, i have medicare a,b and d through the goverment, they pay most of my expenses (I hae a $10 deducatable no that is not a typo. $10.00 not $100.00)I have not lost 1 Freedom? I pay a minuimal prememium (much much less the Blue Cross Blue Shield, I get to choose my docotor, I get to choose my pharmacy ect and my hoisptial if that is needed, I have not given up 1 freedom for this and have saved money over Blue Cross Blue Shield amnog others
Just Not sure what you mean, what does having universal health care have to do with surrending freedoms??
And to pay for it, you up the Tax on Cigarettes, Liguor ect the Sin Tax,, if you do not drink or smoke, you as a taxpayer pay ZERO because all the cost are covered and only those who smoke and drink pay for the Insuarance costs through theTax on those items
And you still get your Insurance NO payroll deductiond on it either
Yes you pay a montlhy Preminum for Medicare but you would have to pay a Premium for any insurance you have Health, Life, Car ect NO insurance is free in terms of no premium to pay

[mkemse]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I also may have misunderstood what you mean by loss of Freedoms, if you are referring to loss of Fredom to choose your own docotor own hospital and related , yes you would if you are talking about loss of freedoms such as where you can live, work travel ect, your civil liberties no you would not loose that, so if i misunderstood what you mean my
i just need to clarify what I said in response to what you said, my apologies if i misuinderstood what you meant

[wmrs2]

A couple of questions

1) How do you measure how good our health care system is; infant mortality? life span? What metrics are you using to back up your declaration that this system is the best?

2) If you lost your job and ran out of COBRA coverage how would that $200k health bill be paid?
I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

[wmrs2]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
It just has not worked very well to surrender your freedoms to the government in terms of health insurance

I also may have misunderstood what you mean by loss of Freedoms, if you are referring to loss of Fredom to choose your own docotor own hospital and related , yes you would if you are talking about loss of freedoms such as where you can live, work travel ect, your civil liberties no you would not loose that, so if i misunderstood what you mean my
i just need to clarify what I said in response to what you said, my apologies if i misuinderstood what you meant
What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

[Belgarold]

I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

You stated earlier that, "The Health care we have is the best in the world", And I think what the good Dr. was getting to is how do you support that statement. I would like to know the answer to that as well.

[MMI]

I didn't relise this thread was still going on ...

I can't comment on the different levels of medicare people are on, or whether it is a good deal for you all - I hope it is.

I do endorse thank Dr Buzzczar for his comments, and I note that wmrs2's response was, I can't lose my job. Then you are luckier than most Americans. I have "spoken" to many Americans on the internet who do not have any health insurance because they cannot afford it. They pray that they never fall seriously ill because they dread having to use the public health services. It is third world standard. I have also spoken to at least one American without health insurance and who had a serious illness. She is better now, but she had to sell her house.

Socialism isn't all about taking money from those who have it and giving it to the indolent. It is treating everyone as they should be treated, like people, regardless of how much money they have accumulated. I suppose you could say that under socialism, a person is appeciated for what he gives to society whereas under capitalism, a person is appreciated for what he takes out of it.

Yes, America has universal health care: a two-tier system. One for the rich, and one for the poor. In the land where everyone is supposed to be equal, only if you have money are you entitled to good health, and, yes, to live your life to the full. I was thrilled to hear that Obama wants to introduce a better healthcare system: go for it, Barack!

I have indicated before how much I have personally benefitted from our state system. I have had a heart attack, I am on life-long treatment for diabetes. My wife has been operated on for cancer and is now receiving a five year course of medicine. I have no idea what that might cost in USA: we get it for free.

But, that's not true, we don't get it for free. We paid our National Insurance contributions, like very other working person in UK. These contributions pay for the NHS, just as your medicare premiums pay for your private system. The difference is, that, there are no limits or exclusions under the NHS, and there are no fat cats creaming off profits like there are in the health insurance companies. (I admit there are inefficiencies and budget restrictions, but those happen everywhere, and they do not impeded the provision of a high quality health service that is free at the point of delivery. And if the British system does suck - as capitalist Americans have claimed - then the French and Canadian systems certainly do not.)
As for the freedoms I have surrendered, I can't think of one. If you know what freedoms I have lost, please tell me.

[mkemse]

What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term

[wmrs2]

Ok all I wanted to know was when you said los of reedom whether you mean freedom to chooice you doctor ect ect or lost of civil librities

your post to me was very ambiguous when toy said "Loss Of Freedoms," tha could mean any number of tyings from loosing you ability to choose your docotor, hosptial pharamacy and be at theirmercy or your cilvil libertires
ifi was in refernce to loss of choosing your own docotor, ect yes you would if was in reference to loosing your civil liberties, that would have nothngi to do with it the as i ssaid the term used "LOss of Freedo as posted was a very geberal term
Pardon me for this please but your typing is so bad that I am having difficult reading what you are asking but nevertheless, I will try to answer you. As I said I think the answer lies in a discussion of socialism vs. capitalism. You say you are not a socialist, as you keep telling me,therefore, you should appreciate my comments. The more the government takes over the control of health care, the less freedom you will have in making decisions. For example, this morning, the news media announced that Obama was going to resend the decision that protected doctors who refused to provide services to people seeking abortions. Heretofore, if the doctor considered it immoral to perform an abortion, he could refuse to do so. From hereafter, if he refuses to do so, the doctor could lose his right to practice medicine and also lose any Federal funds in payment for any services he provides. It has been a part of established law that a mother can have an abortion but, if a doctor for religious reasons, did not want to provide this service, he could refuse. Now, that is about to change.The right of the doctor to chose is stripped from him. This is one example of where socialism tends to limit the freedom of the individual to make moral decisions. I am sure you can think of others.

In thinking about what you said last night about health care, it came to me that the problems associated with health care may not lie so much in the system of health care we have, but in the individual's management of his personal economy. As you explained your health coverage to me, it seemed that you have a pretty good health plan. I think this is true of the majority of Americans. Your health coverage is very similar to mine.

Of course, I have no way of knowing if you are wealthy or poor but let's say that you are dirt poor. Let's speculate that you had no respect for the value of an education when you were young. Let's say that you gambled and hit the bars regularly and never really tried to hold a well paying job.(I assume none of these things are true of you,ok.) The problem with your health care benefits would not be with your health care system but rather with how you managed your life history. Too many people chose to enter the economy at a level that pleases them at the moment, show no motivation to improve their economic position, and in later life want others to pay their way. It is about that grasshopper thing. This illustrates the weaknesses of socialism and the strong point of capitalism. I prefer capitalism rather than communism and socialism the same as you do.

You say that you do not favor the nationalization of the factors of productions and neither do I. If we apply this same principle to health care, it is obvious why we must be against universal health care as some people predispose it. Yet, I recognize that health care needs to be improved for children and the disabled but I don't see the value of letting grasshoppers mess up the works which socialism will do.

My point in stating that America has the world's greatest health care was not to argue that fact as being too true but that the good health system we have was built under a capitalistic system. I think that we can improve the health system in a more democratic way by sticking with our democratic principles. This, I assume this is the reason you are not a socialist yourself.

[MMI]

On the contrary, the fact that a man falls on hard times, and then falls ill, but cannot be treated because he is poor shows that the capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.

I agree there are some people who are unwilling to make sensible provision for their life, and I can understand the argument that they should be made to take the consequences of their stupidity, but such people are few and far between. There are many many more who deserve our help and who would be just as willing to help if they could. Your system condemns them, perhaps to death. A state healthcare system would not.

Furthermore, who is to say who is a scrounger and who is deserving? How can you tell?

When you consider that countries like France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have state sponsored healthcare systems where treatment is available for all, I repudiate the suggestion that universal health care is something only to be found under "socialism".

What I want to know is, why you are so mean-minded that you would prefer to let people suffer rather than pool your resources with everyone else to ensure that everyone, good or bad, wealthy or poor, holy or evil, black or white, you or anybody else, can be given the best available treatment when they need it.

No-one - not even drug addicts, benefit cheats or people of a lower social class than yours - wants to have cancer, or to have to deliver their own baby in a squalid hovel, or to cauterise a stump after losing a limb on their own. Would you turn them away from hospital becasue they don't have the right medical subscription? Suppose your car left the road ploughed into a hedge under which a homeless person was sleeping. Should you be treated for your cuts and bruises while the vagabond lies in his own blood and piss, limbs crushed and body racked with unrelieved pain, simply because he didn't make sensible provision for his future?

Have you ever read a Charles Dickens book?

As for the doctor losing his freedom to choose on religious grounds whether to perform an abortion or not, at least it restores the woman's right to choose on pragmatic grounds whether to become a mother or not, without receiving a lecture on the doctor's idea of what is right or wrong, or to be told she is a harlot and the spawn of the Devil. I would bet that her choice is more valid than the quack's.

So far, you have failed signally to convince me that I would be better off making my own provision for healthcare, than I am belonging to the National Health Service.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

Poor in the US are not a burden on society. 46% of US poor own their own home!

As for worth being measured in $. I suspect that you focused to much on one aspect. I must admit that I am not sure just what made you take this tack.

[DuncanONeil]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

[Belgarold]

To add on to MMI's post. There is a public health issue involved in the argument FOR Universal Health care as well. If someone who can't afford health care (and in this country there are more and more of us) and they get something serious or contagious it affects their whole area.

My feeling is the Health Care Insurance Industry are the ones that create the socialist bugaboo. They have a cash cow here and do not want to lose it. WHile most Americans suffer. And where a high school educated clerk decides what will be paid for and what won't be.

ALL PEOPLE deserve health care.

ANd Duncan, you are right, but many that do not support Universal Health care use that argument. That the poor are ALL ne'erdowells that do not deserve to be treated like human beings. SO MMI's point was sound, it IS callous to believe this. But many, many people believe it.

[mkemse]

On the contrary, the fact that a man falls on hard times, and then falls ill, but cannot be treated because he is poor shows that the capitalist system is fundamentally flawed.

I agree there are some people who are unwilling to make sensible provision for their life, and I can understand the argument that they should be made to take the consequences of their stupidity, but such people are few and far between. There are many many more who deserve our help and who would be just as willing to help if they could. Your system condemns them, perhaps to death. A state healthcare system would not.

Furthermore, who is to say who is a scrounger and who is deserving? How can you tell?

When you consider that countries like France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have state sponsored healthcare systems where treatment is available for all, I repudiate the suggestion that universal health care is something only to be found under "socialism".

What I want to know is, why you are so mean-minded that you would prefer to let people suffer rather than pool your resources with everyone else to ensure that everyone, good or bad, wealthy or poor, holy or evil, black or white, you or anybody else, can be given the best available treatment when they need it.

No-one - not even drug addicts, benefit cheats or people of a lower social class than yours - wants to have cancer, or to have to deliver their own baby in a squalid hovel, or to cauterise a stump after losing a limb on their own. Would you turn them away from hospital becasue they don't have the right medical subscription? Suppose your car left the road ploughed into a hedge under which a homeless person was sleeping. Should you be treated for your cuts and bruises while the vagabond lies in his own blood and piss, limbs crushed and body racked with unrelieved pain, simply because he didn't make sensible provision for his future?

Have you ever read a Charles Dickens book?

As for the doctor losing his freedom to choose on religious grounds whether to perform an abortion or not, at least it restores the woman's right to choose on pragmatic grounds whether to become a mother or not, without receiving a lecture on the doctor's idea of what is right or wrong, or to be told she is a harlot and the spawn of the Devil. I would bet that her choice is more valid than the quack's.

So far, you have failed signally to convince me that I would be better off making my own provision for healthcare, than I am belonging to the National Health Service.


Sorry about mt typing, yes WMRS2 had said if we had universal insurance she would loose all her freedoms what I wa trying to determine was if they meant Freedom to choose her own doctor, medication and pharacy ect or if they meant civil liberties, the reply post by them was ambiguois and left me confuded as to what they mean by looose of freedomss thas all
based on pasts posts by them I waa not sure which freedoms the were infreference to

sorry about my typing hope this one is better

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I am not sure that I can defend the declaration that this system is the best and I really don't know if Oboma's health plan is better or not. The health plan I have is really good for me. I have medicare and a secondary plan. I am retired and it is doubtful that my health plan will change much. Any light you can shine of this issue will be appreciated. I do have family members who need health coverage.

I've been studying this subject off and on for a few years. I'm a long way from an expert, but I've done some reading.

According to the World Health Organization the U.S. has the 37th best health system in the world.

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States is 46th in the world in life expectancy at birth (expected life span in years) and 40th in infant mortality (deaths/1000 births).

In an earlier post someone bashed the Canadian system (I don't recall who at the moment). Canada is ranked higher than the U.S. in all phases of health care except $$/capita. Careful about that rock throwing.

A country that intrigues me is Japan. They significantly out perform the U.S in those three metrics I listed and have an aging population as do we. Their health care system is a Universal plan covering 100% of their population using a mixture of private and public insurance systems. Since we have the baby-boomers getting very close to retirement and putting tremendous strains on our Medicare and Social Security systems watching how Japan deals with this similar problem will be educational.

Here's some trivia for ya'll:

Cuba has lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. as does Bosnia, per the CIA World Factbook.

France has the best overall health care system per WHO, while being #4 in health care expenditures per capita. (The U.S. is #1 in expenditures per capita for health care.)

There is no doubt in my mind that our present system can and should be improved.

[Thorne]

I'm going to play some Devil's Advocate here. (If I believed in hell I'd probably be condemned to the seventh circle for this. And some here would be more than happy to escort me there!;) )

ALL PEOPLE deserve health care.
Why?

I can think of quite a few people who don't deserve health care. I can think of quite a few who don't deserve to live!

Should a junkie who poisons himself with toxic chemicals every day of his life be entitled to the same quality of health care as hard working citizen? Should someone who drinks himself into a stupor night after night, destroying his own liver in the process, be given the same chance for a new liver as the young mother who's liver was damaged in a car accident? And what of the doctors and nurses who might no longer be able to set their own fees for services rendered. Don't they deserve better than that?

Everyone deserves healthy foods, too, don't they? So why not devise a Universal Food Service System, so anybody who's hungry can walk into any restaurant and get the most expensive meal for free? Just trash the food stamp program. That only lets people get the cheapest foods. We all deserve to eat steaks, every night!

And people need transportation, too, don't they? Why not give everyone a brand new luxury car, so they can get around when they have to? And don't forget the gas! Everyone needs free gas, too. And heating oil. And housing. We DESERVE it! Don't we? Hell, the government's paying for it. They have plenty of money!

All right, all right, I realize I'm bordering on the ridiculous here (if I haven't already crossed that border.) But my point is that nobody deserves anything. We have to EARN our way in this world. Nobody has to give anything to anyone.

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do I.

Should we provide health care to those who cannot afford it? Certainly! That doesn't mean it has to be the greatest quality health care, though. A certain basic level of care and treatment would be called for. Beyond that it's pretty much pay as you go.

And yes, I realize that condemns the children of poor families to lower quality health care simply because of their parents position in society. Short of raising all children in a central creche system until they are old enough to earn their own way, I don't see any cure for this. Life's a bitch!

(Geez, I'm gonna get crucified for this!)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do

As I understand it, Universal Health Care means that basic health care is available to everyone. Germany, for instance, has a Universal Health Care that covers 85% of their population that covers basic health needs. The other 15% opt for private insurance as they can afford it. Germany has had a form of universal coverage since 1883 under Otto Von Bismarck, by the way.

[Belgarold]

I've been studying this subject off and on for a few years. I'm a long way from an expert, but I've done some reading.

According to the World Health Organization the U.S. has the 37th best health system in the world.

According to the CIA World Factbook the United States is 46th in the world in life expectancy at birth (expected life span in years) and 40th in infant mortality (deaths/1000 births).

In an earlier post someone bashed the Canadian system (I don't recall who at the moment). Canada is ranked higher than the U.S. in all phases of health care except $$/capita. Careful about that rock throwing.

A country that intrigues me is Japan. They significantly out perform the U.S in those three metrics I listed and have an aging population as do we. Their health care system is a Universal plan covering 100% of their population using a mixture of private and public insurance systems. Since we have the baby-boomers getting very close to retirement and putting tremendous strains on our Medicare and Social Security systems watching how Japan deals with this similar problem will be educational.

Here's some trivia for ya'll:

Cuba has lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. as does Bosnia, per the CIA World Factbook.

France has the best overall health care system per WHO, while being #4 in health care expenditures per capita. (The U.S. is #1 in expenditures per capita for health care.)

There is no doubt in my mind that our present system can and should be improved.

Thanks again for this research. I was going to mention Japan but didn't have the statistics to back up my thought that their system was VERY good.

Thanks again.

[Belgarold]

I'm going to play some Devil's Advocate here. (If I believed in hell I'd probably be condemned to the seventh circle for this. And some here would be more than happy to escort me there!;) )

Why?

I can think of quite a few people who don't deserve health care. I can think of quite a few who don't deserve to live!

Should a junkie who poisons himself with toxic chemicals every day of his life be entitled to the same quality of health care as hard working citizen? Should someone who drinks himself into a stupor night after night, destroying his own liver in the process, be given the same chance for a new liver as the young mother who's liver was damaged in a car accident? And what of the doctors and nurses who might no longer be able to set their own fees for services rendered. Don't they deserve better than that?

Everyone deserves healthy foods, too, don't they? So why not devise a Universal Food Service System, so anybody who's hungry can walk into any restaurant and get the most expensive meal for free? Just trash the food stamp program. That only lets people get the cheapest foods. We all deserve to eat steaks, every night!

And people need transportation, too, don't they? Why not give everyone a brand new luxury car, so they can get around when they have to? And don't forget the gas! Everyone needs free gas, too. And heating oil. And housing. We DESERVE it! Don't we? Hell, the government's paying for it. They have plenty of money!

All right, all right, I realize I'm bordering on the ridiculous here (if I haven't already crossed that border.) But my point is that nobody deserves anything. We have to EARN our way in this world. Nobody has to give anything to anyone.

As I understand it, Universal Health Care brings everyone to the same level (theoretically) so that the bum from the Bowery and the millionaire from Park Avenue get the same quality of medicine, the same quality of nursing care and the same quality of hospital care. While I'm sure that the bum sees nothing wrong with this, I'm also sure that the millionaire does! And so do I.

Should we provide health care to those who cannot afford it? Certainly! That doesn't mean it has to be the greatest quality health care, though. A certain basic level of care and treatment would be called for. Beyond that it's pretty much pay as you go.

And yes, I realize that condemns the children of poor families to lower quality health care simply because of their parents position in society. Short of raising all children in a central creche system until they are old enough to earn their own way, I don't see any cure for this. Life's a bitch!

(Geez, I'm gonna get crucified for this!)

Maybe not crucified, but I do take exception to much you have said, LOL.

I DO believe that people deserve to be fed. Just on what we Americans throw out every day we could feed the hungry. And there are too many people going hungry in this country.

Granted the car thing aside (a bit far out there :-) ). I believe, yes the Junkie needs to have the OPTION of getting care for his addiction. And Life may be a bitch but that is no reason we can't strive to make it better.

And true socialism is supposed to do as you say. Everybody is equal and gets equal care. And in a perfect world maybe that would work. But if you look at the USSR, China, etc. Corruption wins out and the Commisars and leaders live VERY well while the populace suffers. But we have our OWN share of corruption in this system as well.

I believe that what Obama proposes is that if you don't like the government plan you can opt out and have your own plan. The socialistic, we are going to ruin your health care bugaboo, is a scare tactic from the Health Insurance industry.

Dr. BuzzCzar's explanation of the German system is probably what we would build here.

But we have to get past all the scare tactics and misrepresented facts I believe.

[MMI]

Mr O'Neil. I have to say, I do like to provoke people. I can't help it, I like a good rumbustuous debate. If a poke won't get one, I'll try a prod.

Nevertheless, it does seem to people outside USA that the value of everything to Americans is measured in dollars, and if a thing has no dollar value, then it is utterly worthless. A misconception, possibly, but almost as universal as some healthcare systems. Vide other Americans' comments in this thread.

The fact that a poor person owns his own house doesn't necessarily mean much. How much equity does he own in that house, by the way? And is that house no more than a timber construction twice the size of my potting shed, or is it a vast mansion set in grounds that expand over many acres? To get to the point, if he sells it, will it cover his medical bills, and, if it does, will he have somewhere to live after he has paid them?

But if, as you say, even the poor of America are wealthy, then why do you fear helping them out. They will be able to afford to contribute to the system as much as you will. They will be scrounging off you no more than you will be leeching off them. Please understand, despite what detractors say, national healthcare services are not free handouts to the dregs of society: everyone pays into it and everyone is entitled to draw upon it when they need to.

Furthermore, I believe that dubbing the American Health Care System (or the proposed one) as Kevorkian is a gross slander on the medical profession in America. If they are operating a triage system, it is to prioritise treatment by the degree of urgency, it is not to filter out those who can be "helped to die".


And that brings me on to Thorne's comments. Oh Thorne! What can I say? Should I say it in German? Wer sind die Untermenschen, die verdienen, zu sterben*?

OK - I'm not fluent, but I think you get my point.

How would you decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't? People without jobs don't? Or blacks, jews or communists, maybe. Perhaps you hate women. Or people earning less than $50,000. What is your criterion when you say there are people who deserve to die?

There but for fortune, Thorne. You do deserve to be crucified

And you also need to get it out of your head that you are being asked to give up any of your ill-gotten gains just to give other people who you consider beneath you a free ride. You are being asked to make a payment similar to a health care plan's premium - and instead of it - in order to obtain a full health care service run by or on behalf of everyone who participates. It's co-operation, not communism, and it's probably cheaper than what you pay Medicare - and you won't be excluded on the grounds of your parents' medical history, or because you have suffered from a particular illness before, or simply because your policy doesn't run to that much cover. You'll be entitled to the best the heath system can afford. I can see nothing wrong with the bum and the millionaire getting the best. But if the millionaire can afford even better, then let him have it, so long as he maintains his contribution into the health service.

It should be available to all, but the choice whether to use it must be a free one.

Likewise with a healthy food service or a public transport service. If these were thought desirable, then everyone would contribute to a food tax or a transport levy, and then everyone would leave their cars at home and ride to work for "free" eating "free" organic sandwiches. These ideas, have their merits, Thorne: good thinking!

I personally think there should be a national legal service where everyone could get legal representation, free at the point of delivery.

Finally, I think Belgarold has made a very pertinent point when he highlighted government's responsibility to look after the health of the nation as a whole, and that includes controlling the spread of disease.

Perhaps they should be eliminated.

Or they could be cured.


* Who are the subhumans who deserve to die?

[Belgarold]

Just more info on the houses of the poor. Many are houses that have been in the family for years and years. Some from the Homestead act, when members of the family could afford houses, and such like that. Many of these houses are not worth much, unfortunately and if they were sold would mean the owners were probably left homeless.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Y'all do realize that the current plan of "Universal Health Care" is not really "Universal Health Care". It is more like "Universal Triage". An analysis will be made of the cost of the treatment versus the value of the patients remaining life expectancy.
One could claim that this is "Universal Kevorkian Care"

I'd like to research this some. Can you tell me where you found the information on triage-type analysis? I would appreciate it.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Let me pose a health care story. He's worked in American industry for over 30 years rising through the ranks to an executive position. This means he's maintained his health care through work-place insurance. He has a wife and two boys. Sent both boys to college. The wife is a stay-at-home because they live their version of an M/s life. He has accumulated some of the trappings of success; a house on a river, near the ocean, drives a luxury auto, has a 401K, an IRA, some mutual funds, a decent stock portfolio, plus some cash. Not rich, but comfortable. The wife gets a surprise diagnosis of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia after a yearly exam. There's no cure, but there's treatment to buy time waiting on technology to find that magic bullet. Her version of the disease is aggressive. She doesn't react well to the treatments and ends up with multiple hospital stays while they chase the causes. The economy goes in the tank. The division of the privately-owned business he's been running begins to struggle. Owner gets scared, decides he's closing that division down. Our subject is going to lose company insurance in a couple more months, COBRA will add another 18 months. After that he'll be paying for treatment out of those investments that have been decimated by the fall in the stock market. To put things in perspective her meds are expensive; shots that cost $4-$7k each, pills that cost $1k a month, lab tests that cost over $10k that need to be done a couple times a year, regular bi-weekly office visits, other shots, pills, tests, transfusions, etc. etc. Maybe the chemo she's taking will buy 20-24 months, maybe not. There's always the ultimate chance for this type disease, a bone marrow transplant that may offer full remission. Those cost about $500k not counting the cost of continuing care for a year or two after, and most importantly, depending on several factors, the survival rate is only about 58%.

Maybe he'll find work and regain insurance, maybe he won't. If he doesn't, 30 years of saving for a comfortable retirement will be consumed due to selling investments at these depressed prices in order to pay medical bills.

This isn't a fantasy, this is our life. The reason I have so much time to play on these forums is I have my laptop in the hospital and can get online while I sit by her bed. The rest of the time is doing the work involved in job searching.

I'm not looking for a bunch of sympathy, just pointing out that this debate on health care has a human face. A couple things going wrong can ruin lives very easily. Now odds are that I can find a decent job as I'm pretty good at what I do ( he says modestly) and we'll be fine, but there's a lot more out there that won't. Don't we deserve health care?

[Thorne]

I'm not looking for a bunch of sympathy, just pointing out that this debate on health care has a human face.

You do have my sympathy, sir. I know some of what you are going through as my brother is also undergoing treatments for cancer. He has recently had stem cell treatments and hopefully has turned the tide on his disease, but there are no guarantees.

Fortunately, his bills are largely covered by his disability insurance, which he earned by working for most of his life, paying his taxes, paying his dues, just like you and I and the vast majority of people in this country. Have we earned the right to health care? Certainly! We have done our bits to help society and both live and protect our ways of life.


As I understand it, Universal Health Care means that basic health care is available to everyone. Germany, for instance, has a Universal Health Care that covers 85% of their population that covers basic health needs. The other 15% opt for private insurance as they can afford it.
This is more in line with what I think UHC should be, as there is always the option for better coverage if desired. And as long as everyone pays into the system, more or less, that's fine.

But what of those who don't pay in? What of those who opt out because they need that extra few dollars a week in their paycheck and can't afford alternative care. Do we still provide them with free health care? And those who never pay into the system at all, are they eligible? While these may be a relatively small percentage of the population, probably more than the liberals would admit to but less than the conservatives will whine about, it is still a significant number of people, all living off the hard work of other people.

As Belgarold says in his post above, in a perfect world these kinds of systems would work well. But in a perfect world I guess these systems wouldn't be needed. This world is far from perfect, though. Unless I can get full reassurances that hard-working, law-abiding people can be treated well without having to be dragged down by hangers-on who will not work and will not abide by the law, I will remain suspicious of these kinds of systems.

[Thorne]

And that brings me on to Thorne's comments. Oh Thorne! What can I say? Should I say it in German? Wer sind die Untermenschen, die verdienen, zu sterben*?

How would you decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't? People without jobs don't? Or blacks, jews or communists, maybe. Perhaps you hate women. Or people earning less than $50,000.
Thankfully I don't have to make those decisions, but my first choice would be those who prey on innocent people, taking anything they want because they are too lazy to work for it. I don't hate blacks or Jews. And I don't even hate communists, though I think they are deluded in their beliefs. And I definitely love women! And I respect them. And for the record, I earn less than $50,000.


What is your criterion when you say there are people who deserve to die?
Well, to start with, I'd have to say child molesters would be at the top of my list, followed closely by drug dealers/importers, especially those who sell to children. Spouse beaters and general bullies who blame everyone for their own failings might make the list, though perhaps just being the recipients of the kind of abuse they hand out would be enough. And rapists. I cannot tolerate them. Put them up with the child molesters.


There but for fortune, Thorne. You do deserve to be crucified
While I will admit that some of what I have in my life may be due to luck, most is due to my own hard work and that of my wife. We have always looked to the future, saving when we could and skimping when we had to. Not letting ourselves get into debt over luxuries we could live without.


And you also need to get it out of your head that you are being asked to give up any of your ill-gotten gains just to give other people who you consider beneath you a free ride.
The unkindest cut, here. Anyone who manages to save and make something of themselves must be depending upon "ill-gotten gains". Well I can honestly say that none of what little I have in this life has been gained at the expense of someone else. Unless you think I should give up my job of 25 years to someone who needs it more.

[wmrs2]

I think everybody debating health care on this thread is interested in improving health care and supports as much universal health care as possible. Yet, there is much disagreement on how to deliver health goods (medicine) and services (attention of medical professionals). We all need to be convinced of the need to improve health services to the needy but we do not need to be duped into accepting another form of government. Socialism does not have to replace capitalism to achieve our collective goal of better health care for all.

Communism, a good example of socialism, has failed both in the distribution and production of goods and services throughout the world. Communist and socialist do not like to admit failure. In fact, in spite of their obvious failures in providing health care, they claim great success. In some socialist countries, they do have good health care. I am not trying to say that these systems never deliver but any American that believes that Cuba has a better quality of life than is offered in America has been greatly duped.

I know of no country in Asia that has better health care than the USA offers universally to its citizens. Japan may be an exception to this statement. The other socialist states in Asia suck in terms of health care. In Africa, what country provides health care to the same level as our citizens have in the USA? I do not see any great health systems in South America anywhere. In Western Europe there may be countries that offer adequate health care but Eastern Europe there is plenty of room for improvement. The USA is still the country that sets the standards for public health care by which the rest of the world judges itself. Yes, there are a few smaller counties that do well, maybe better, in public health care than the USA but make no mistake about it, the USA is the world leader in health care. The USA is also the world leader in sharing health care to the entire world. What health care system in the world can boast of the great production and world distribution of health services like American capitalism has provided.

Yes, let us improve health care for all but let us not be duped into thinking socialism or communism offers a better deal than what Americans have had in its past history with capitalism. Socialism uses issues like health care to make strides in promoting their way of life but they ultimately fall way short of delivery.
wmrs2

[MMI]

I apologise, Thorne. I let my ideas run away with me. I did not really mean to imply that your savings were ill-gotten. I was over-descriptive and you are right to pull me up for it.

wmrs2: Socialism does not have to replace capitalism to achieve our goals.

Well said, that man.

But it will involve a certain change of attitude. An appreciation of the fact that everyone benefits under a state-sponsored health system, and no-one should be denied access to it, at least, not on grounds of wealth or income.

as for the rest of your post, I haven't read it properly yet, but it looks like cant ... I'll respond later if it deserves any.

[Belgarold]

I think everybody debating health care on this thread is interested in improving health care and supports as much universal health care as possible. Yet, there is much disagreement on how to deliver health goods (medicine) and services (attention of medical professionals). We all need to be convinced of the need to improve health services to the needy but we do not need to be duped into accepting another form of government. Socialism does not have to replace capitalism to achieve our collective goal of better health care for all.

Communism, a good example of socialism, has failed both in the distribution and production of goods and services throughout the world. Communist and socialist do not like to admit failure. In fact, in spite of their obvious failures in providing health care, they claim great success. In some socialist countries, they do have good health care. I am not trying to say that these systems never deliver but any American that believes that Cuba has a better quality of life than is offered in America has been greatly duped.

I know of no country in Asia that has better health care than the USA offers universally to its citizens. Japan may be an exception to this statement. The other socialist states in Asia suck in terms of health care. In Africa, what country provides health care to the same level as our citizens have in the USA? I do not see any great health systems in South America anywhere. In Western Europe there may be countries that offer adequate health care but Eastern Europe there is plenty of room for improvement. The USA is still the country that sets the standards for public health care by which the rest of the world judges itself. Yes, there are a few smaller counties that do well, maybe better, in public health care than the USA but make no mistake about it, the USA is the world leader in health care. The USA is also the world leader in sharing health care to the entire world. What health care system in the world can boast of the great production and world distribution of health services like American capitalism has provided.

Yes, let us improve health care for all but let us not be duped into thinking socialism or communism offers a better deal than what Americans have had in its past history with capitalism. Socialism uses issues like health care to make strides in promoting their way of life but they ultimately fall way short of delivery.
wmrs2

A couple of points here. Someone hasn't been listening. Cuba was said to have better HEALTH care than most. Most of Western Europe has Universal Health Care and have not turned Socialistic or COmmunistic becasue of it. I think a good bit of Eastern Europe would take exception to your spurious characterization of their care.

Japan is NOT a Socialistic country and its Health care is top-notch. And did you READ BuzzCzar's post? Our System is sadly in need of overhauling. So the Rah-Rah attitude is unwarranted until we FIX the system.

Universal Health Care is NOT a communist plot.

[Belgarold]

Let me pose a health care story. He's worked in American industry for over 30 years rising through the ranks to an executive position. This means he's maintained his health care through work-place insurance. He has a wife and two boys. Sent both boys to college. The wife is a stay-at-home because they live their version of an M/s life. He has accumulated some of the trappings of success; a house on a river, near the ocean, drives a luxury auto, has a 401K, an IRA, some mutual funds, a decent stock portfolio, plus some cash. Not rich, but comfortable. The wife gets a surprise diagnosis of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia after a yearly exam. There's no cure, but there's treatment to buy time waiting on technology to find that magic bullet. Her version of the disease is aggressive. She doesn't react well to the treatments and ends up with multiple hospital stays while they chase the causes. The economy goes in the tank. The division of the privately-owned business he's been running begins to struggle. Owner gets scared, decides he's closing that division down. Our subject is going to lose company insurance in a couple more months, COBRA will add another 18 months. After that he'll be paying for treatment out of those investments that have been decimated by the fall in the stock market. To put things in perspective her meds are expensive; shots that cost $4-$7k each, pills that cost $1k a month, lab tests that cost over $10k that need to be done a couple times a year, regular bi-weekly office visits, other shots, pills, tests, transfusions, etc. etc. Maybe the chemo she's taking will buy 20-24 months, maybe not. There's always the ultimate chance for this type disease, a bone marrow transplant that may offer full remission. Those cost about $500k not counting the cost of continuing care for a year or two after, and most importantly, depending on several factors, the survival rate is only about 58%.

Maybe he'll find work and regain insurance, maybe he won't. If he doesn't, 30 years of saving for a comfortable retirement will be consumed due to selling investments at these depressed prices in order to pay medical bills.

This isn't a fantasy, this is our life. The reason I have so much time to play on these forums is I have my laptop in the hospital and can get online while I sit by her bed. The rest of the time is doing the work involved in job searching.

I'm not looking for a bunch of sympathy, just pointing out that this debate on health care has a human face. A couple things going wrong can ruin lives very easily. Now odds are that I can find a decent job as I'm pretty good at what I do ( he says modestly) and we'll be fine, but there's a lot more out there that won't. Don't we deserve health care?

Dr. BuzzCzar, I also have sympathy for your position and situation. And as you have so eloquently posted on numerous ocassions, you are not the only one in a similar situation. I will hope you find support for what you need.

[Belgarold]

Thorne, although I don't think ANYONE deserves to die I am with you on child molesters and the like. I don;t think many would have sympathy for the users and abusers and criminals of the world. But wealth doesn't seem to care. Being poor does not mean you are a criminal. Being poor does not mean you are lazy.

Many child molestors and criminals can afford health care. Most criminals can afford health care. Look at Bernie Maddoff, ruined countless lives, but he can "afford" to get Cancer and have experimental treatments.

And even though conventional wisdom and the braying of talk radio and the corporate interests may differ, MOSt poor or those that cannot afford health care are NOT lazy. They are in Dr. BuzzCzar's situation, or circumstantially are unemployed or underemployed.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

But what of those who don't pay in? What of those who opt out because they need that extra few dollars a week in their paycheck and can't afford alternative care. Do we still provide them with free health care? And those who never pay into the system at all, are they eligible? While these may be a relatively small percentage of the population, probably more than the liberals would admit to but less than the conservatives will whine about, it is still a significant number of people, all living off the hard work of other people.

As Belgarold says in his post above, in a perfect world these kinds of systems would work well. But in a perfect world I guess these systems wouldn't be needed. This world is far from perfect, though. Unless I can get full reassurances that hard-working, law-abiding people can be treated well without having to be dragged down by hangers-on who will not work and will not abide by the law, I will remain suspicious of these kinds of systems.

Have you ever been into a hospital emergency room on a Saturday or Sunday? Unfortunately, I've had that experience and we have socialized medicine. Its already here. A significant number of people that don't have insurance go to emergency rooms. According to an experienced (read:Gray haired) Infectious Disease doctor I was having a conversation with this week, her estimation is 50% of the people that come to emergency rooms are uninsured.

We in the U.S. spend fantastic sums on health care and our results lag well behind most other developed nations. That's a proven fact. It isn't conjecture. Our system needs repair and it needs it quickly. I think we need to get the system in place that is an umbrella coverage for all and then work on how to weed out the cheats from both the providers and participants. I am under no illusion that there will not be those that try to beat the system but I can't see punishing the majority because of the failings of the few and our fear of rewarding bad behavior.

[Thorne]

I apologise, Thorne. I let my ideas run away with me. I did not really mean to imply that your savings were ill-gotten. I was over-descriptive and you are right to pull me up for it.
Apology accepted. To be honest, I wasn't really upset by the statement. I didn't believe that you actually meant it literally. I mean, who really uses the term "ill-gotten" in real life anymore. Only the same people who regularly use the phrase "unkindest cut" would be my guess.

[Thorne]

Being poor does not mean you are a criminal. Being poor does not mean you are lazy.
I never meant to imply this. I'm sorry if anyone thought I did.


Many child molestors and criminals can afford health care. Most criminals can afford health care. Look at Bernie Maddoff, ruined countless lives, but he can "afford" to get Cancer and have experimental treatments.
I agree, and this is one area where there perhaps should be changes made. Why should convicted felons be "entitled" to better healthcare than honest working people? Yet if they don't get it their lawyers will have a field day with the justice system.


And even though conventional wisdom and the braying of talk radio and the corporate interests may differ, MOSt poor or those that cannot afford health care are NOT lazy. They are in Dr. BuzzCzar's situation, or circumstantially are unemployed or underemployed.
I understand this as well, and tried to say that, I thought. Working people, whether rich or poor, and even those who want to work but cannot, deserve better treatment than those who are only willing to work long enough to qualify for unemployment benefits and then quit, or those who are willing to live off the welfare system for their whole lives. I've seen these kinds of people. I've had people come into the office where I work, supposedly looking for jobs, and they are dressed in ragged clothes, with unkempt hair, and invariably say, "You're not hiring, are you?" instead of asking if we are. Then they want you to sign their paper for the unemployment office, so they can keep getting their checks.

And again, I know it's not a large percentage of the unemployed, it's not any one race or religion or even gender. But they are there, and they will leach onto any government handout or subsidy until honest taxpayers get so fed up that they want all the handouts and subsidies cut out.

[Thorne]

Have you ever been into a hospital emergency room on a Saturday or Sunday? Unfortunately, I've had that experience and we have socialized medicine. Its already here. A significant number of people that don't have insurance go to emergency rooms. According to an experienced (read:Gray haired) Infectious Disease doctor I was having a conversation with this week, her estimation is 50% of the people that come to emergency rooms are uninsured.
And except in some of the more elite hospital systems, they are all taken care of. Perhaps they don't get the best quality care, but there are very few who are ever turned away.

And yes, I have been in a hospital emergency room on a Saturday morning. Fortunately, it wasn't an emergency. My son had received stitches in an earlier emergency and was supposed to have them removed. I took one look at all the people crammed into that emergency room, saw that many were drunk, some were wounded, most were sick, and all waiting for their turn at the "free" treatment, because they could not be turned away. I was fortunate to be able to say "Fuck it!" And I took my son to his pediatrician, who removed the stitches for his usual fee. I was happy to pay it.

[Belgarold]

I never meant to imply this. I'm sorry if anyone thought I did.


I agree, and this is one area where there perhaps should be changes made. Why should convicted felons be "entitled" to better healthcare than honest working people? Yet if they don't get it their lawyers will have a field day with the justice system.


I understand this as well, and tried to say that, I thought. Working people, whether rich or poor, and even those who want to work but cannot, deserve better treatment than those who are only willing to work long enough to qualify for unemployment benefits and then quit, or those who are willing to live off the welfare system for their whole lives. I've seen these kinds of people. I've had people come into the office where I work, supposedly looking for jobs, and they are dressed in ragged clothes, with unkempt hair, and invariably say, "You're not hiring, are you?" instead of asking if we are. Then they want you to sign their paper for the unemployment office, so they can keep getting their checks.

And again, I know it's not a large percentage of the unemployed, it's not any one race or religion or even gender. But they are there, and they will leach onto any government handout or subsidy until honest taxpayers get so fed up that they want all the handouts and subsidies cut out.

I agree with some of what you here Thorne, but it goes back to my "perfect world" theory. There will always be those that attempt to 'game' the system, but you discuss (And I understand only because talk radio and corporate interests discuss one side as well) only one side of the issue.

The rich, the corporations, the powerful, game the system EVERY day to gain MORE wealth. And they certainly affect a lot more people and destroy lives with their gaming the system. Maddoff, Abramoff, AIG, Enronn, Blagojevich, DeLay, Ted Stevens, The banking industry, the Auto industry, etc etc etc.

And one of the biggest 'gamers' of the system is the Health Care Insurance Industry and with arguments much like yours. And one of the reasons we see such full Emergency rooms is because of the Insurers 'cash cow.' And they limit treatment or play god by choosing who will live and die every day. And how do they make their decision, the bottom line. That I find immoral and disgusting.

I have waited in emrgency rooms for hours of time as well. And in the city of Los ANgeles county hospital. Sure I have seen a few of the drunk but not 'many.' I have mainly seen sick people desperate for care.

And you talk about government handouts. The corporate interests and the rich are the biggest beneficiaries of handouts. And flying in corporate jets to get those handouts.

When I weigh someone getting a $400 check a month for a year or so that they don't deserve and someone getting a $400 Billion dollar check AND a 7 or 8 figure bonus AND laying off thousands of hard-working people after running a company into the ground out of greed and criminal neglect, I KNOW which 'gamers' I would rather support.

[wmrs2]

A couple of points here. Someone hasn't been listening. Cuba was said to have better HEALTH care than most. Most of Western Europe has Universal Health Care and have not turned Socialistic or COmmunistic becasue of it. I think a good bit of Eastern Europe would take exception to your spurious characterization of their care.

Japan is NOT a Socialistic country and its Health care is top-notch. And did you READ BuzzCzar's post? Our System is sadly in need of overhauling. So the Rah-Rah attitude is unwarranted until we FIX the system.

Universal Health Care is NOT a communist plot.
Strange thing, the President just concluded the national forum on health care not twenty minutes ago. The members of the forum, both Democrats and Republicans took a non combative attitude towards each other, in their efforts to "find an American solution" to the health care problem. Everybody was on board with this idea of an American solution and if they had suggested we look towards Cuba for the solution, then that person would have appeared to be very non American.

Most world wide solutions to our political and economic problems have come from the USA. I personally have every right to be Rah-Rah towards America. The problem with too many liberals and socialist in America have been their listening to their own propaganda. They enjoy criticism of America and accuse any person who praises our country as narrow minded, selfish and too Rah-Rah. Your point of view is not friendly to Americans who do care and although you may not be a Communist, your rhetorical response to my praise of the USA is surely in line with the communist and socialist propaganda theme.

I know, you are going to say that anybody that disagrees with me, I call a Communist! I do not yet think you are a Communist and I think you want to be a loyal American but you appear to have swallowed hook,line and sinker the Communist propaganda when it comes to your political philosophy. As an American you should be proud to praise the history of the USA. You should be quick to stand with our past warriors and leaders who have guided us to the place we hold in the world. Sadly to say, too many liberals and socialist think this way of disliking the American way of doing things. (note, many liberals do not feel this way.)

[wmrs2]

Dr. BuzzCzar, I also have sympathy for your position and situation. And as you have so eloquently posted on numerous ocassions, you are not the only one in a similar situation. I will hope you find support for what you need.
I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. We as a nation are moving in the direction of better health care for all Americans. I was glad to see that Belgarold still has a strong faith in America and says he will be fine. Our country is trying to come through for all Americans.This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.

[mkemse]

I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. We as a nation are moving in the direction of better health care for all Americans. I was glad to see that Belgarold still has a strong faith in America and says he will be fine. Our country is trying to come through for all Americans.This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.

Well put, this is an ugly siutation for ALL, something has to be done children deserve medical coverage they can't pay for it themselves

[Belgarold]

I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. We as a nation are moving in the direction of better health care for all Americans. I was glad to see that Belgarold still has a strong faith in America and says he will be fine. Our country is trying to come through for all Americans.This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.


I will be ignoring your narrowminded ranting from now on, you have no selfwareness and hash over the same tired old adages.

Here, I was giving sympathy to someone in a very difficult situation as a true Human Being would. ANd you STILL have not been listening or reading. Many people have died, leaving their loved one's in grief and IMMENSE debt because of the current System. But where in the Heck did I say anything political in my statement.

But you have taken what I have said, to someone living through one of the problems with health care and taken my sympathy for them and twisted it for your own SICK aims.

You are not worth my time.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Strange thing, the President just concluded the national forum on health care not twenty minutes ago. The members of the forum, both Democrats and Republicans took a non combative attitude towards each other, in their efforts to "find an American solution" to the health care problem. Everybody was on board with this idea of an American solution and if they had suggested we look towards Cuba for the solution, then that person would have appeared to be very non American.

I used the infant mortality rate in Cuba and Bosnia to make a point that our health care system has weaknesses. I don't for a moment believe that a communist or socialist government is better than a representative democracy. Facts are facts though, there are better health care systems than ours. We can and should have a better one. I'm not saying we should copy anyone's health care system but we would be foolish to not investigate those that out-perform ours and learn from them.


Most world wide solutions to our political and economic problems have come from the USA.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.


I personally have every right to be Rah-Rah towards America. The problem with too many liberals and socialist in America have been their listening to their own propaganda. They enjoy criticism of America and accuse any person who praises our country as narrow minded, selfish and too Rah-Rah. Your point of view is not friendly to Americans who do care and although you may not be a Communist, your rhetorical response to my praise of the USA is surely in line with the communist and socialist propaganda theme.

I know, you are going to say that anybody that disagrees with me, I call a Communist! I do not yet think you are a Communist and I think you want to be a loyal American but you appear to have swallowed hook,line and sinker the Communist propaganda when it comes to your political philosophy. As an American you should be proud to praise the history of the USA. You should be quick to stand with our past warriors and leaders who have guided us to the place we hold in the world. Sadly to say, too many liberals and socialist think this way of disliking the American way of doing things. (note, many liberals do not feel this way.)

I'm as proud of being an American as anyone, as is the vast majority of those liberals you speak of in such a demeaning manner. Just an FYI, I'm sitting here looking at the shadow box on the wall behind this computer with my unit patches and my medals from my Army service. Among those is a Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster. You don't have to be a right-wing neo-con to have fought for your country. One of the things I take great pride in as an American is the right to criticize what I see as shortcomings and wrongs performed by my country. One of my favorite paintings is by Norman Rockwell and it is of a boy looking admirably up at his father, a man in work clothes, who is standing up in a town meeting and speaking. That personifies this country to me. We all have that freedom of speech and failing to see her shortcomings is much more dangerous than blindly backing the status quo all the time, in my opinion.

[mkemse]

I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. We as a nation are moving in the direction of better health care for all Americans. I was glad to see that Belgarold still has a strong faith in America and says he will be fine. Our country is trying to come through for all Americans.This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.


I am a Liberal and I have a much Faith in the Country as any Liberal or Conservative, we WILL as a Nation get through this crisis just as we have others crisises we have been in, in the past, it may time time but we will weathe this storm, some may not ike the solution but you are no going to please 100% of the people 100% of the time

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. .....This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.

If it isn't the fault of America's health care system where does the fault lie? with me?

How do you know this is the best place in the world to be sick? Every metric I can find says we're near the best, but not the best.

Take my wife's disease. The best treatments in the world for that disease (and if you knew me personally you'd know I've researched the hell out of this) are in Barcelona, London, and Houston (MD Anderson). Two of those are in what you sneeringly refer to as socialist systems and the third is here in the USA. There are some folks in Canada, Australia, and Singapore that appear to be gaining on these three as is Jewish Medical Center on Long Island and the Ohio State Medical Center in Columbus. Our system isn't lousy. It's great if you can afford it. We can be so much better.

[mkemse]

What I said was a very general statement and realize it may not mean much to others. If the government does everything for you and all planning for the future, the individual is free to pursue happiness within a very limited domain. You could be forced to accept less than you can individually afford. I don't want to support people who, for example, buy too much of a house but I don't want the government to tell me how big of a house I can purchase either. That may not be good enough answer for the person that can not afford any house or health care at all but it is the best I can offer at the present. I do have an open mind to suggestions. I do think the answer lies within the discussion of capitalism vs. socialism.

ok thank you for clarifying it as a general statement, that is why i asked what you mean, the way iot was worded I simply did not know which "Freedoms "were referenaced, it was NOT meant a a sligt to you, just asking for clarification thats all

thank you

[mkemse]

Originally Posted by wmrs2
I hope you are not suggesting that his crisis situation is the fault of America. .....This is the best place in the world to be sick. I for one would love to hear you admit this too.

yes it is The Medical Proffesion has alowed prices to skyrocket out of control, tosee a docotor, an MRI ect ect and Pharactial Companies control the prices on their medications, espcizaly the new one, that is why most peole now try to use generics, if avaialble but some medications are is still under patent to the companies and genenrics if i am not misaken can not be created or developed for 5-7 years to do patent rights on new drugs.
If Pharmcutiacal Compies do not have control over thier pricing and Docotors and or Hosptials do not control what they charge who does?? the Goverment doesn't, the Governement does not set the prices for Medication or Meidical Services, the Pharmacutical Companies set thier own Price sand Hosptial do the same, our Medical Industry, Pharacutial Companies and Doctors a swell as Hospitals in this ocuntry are100% UNREGULATED by the OUR Goverment, which allow all 3 to charge what ever they want for goods and servies
You go to a Pharmacy to buy say tylonol and pay $5.50 or slightly more for 100count bottle of Tylynol, if you into a Hosptial and askfor one, your bill will showed they charged you $5.00-$10 for 1 pill, which is what you pay for a whole bottleif you buy one
Why, because they are all unregulated, no that does not mean the Govemrent should "Socialise" these Companies orDoctrs or Hosptial, what it does mean is at Goverment does not control what Pharmacutical Compies, Doctors nd Hosptial can charge or their good and services, so we pay what they want to charge us and ger away with it, th Goverment does not intervene

[wmrs2]

I will be ignoring your narrowminded ranting from now on, you have no selfwareness and hash over the same tired old adages.

Here, I was giving sympathy to someone in a very difficult situation as a true Human Being would. ANd you STILL have not been listening or reading. Many people have died, leaving their loved one's in grief and IMMENSE debt because of the current System. But where in the Heck did I say anything political in my statement.

But you have taken what I have said, to someone living through one of the problems with health care and taken my sympathy for them and twisted it for your own SICK aims.

You are not worth my time.
Ignore me, do whatever you like. By acknowledging the history of the USA of having been great does not diminish Cuba, Asia, or any other country that provides health care for their people. It does not constitute narrow minded ranting as you suggest. My initial post to which you apparently disagree was not a criticism of the world but it was intended to point out the disdain that so called liberal wisdom has for America. It pleases me that several countries around the world provide good health care for their citizens.

The disdain you feel for capitalism and your refusal to give capitalism credit for America's achievements is well marked by your statement"WHile most Americans suffer." Your vision is not correct. Most Americans do not suffer. Some do and that is what we are trying to cure. But your vision is wrong and that is the frame in which you criticize my praise of the USA and call it narrow minded.

There is nothing sick about my aims. Your criticism of me is really based on the fact that your liberal and socialistic ideas have a tent of left wing conspiracy attached to them. The fact is, the billions of people around the world that have been promised by socialist and communist that to follow their way guarantees a healthier way of life has not panned out. I want our friends who are suffering lose of jobs and medical care to have better. But, it is not a sick way to point out your hidden agenda to make the USA smaller in the eyes of the world. You promote a different American way of life than our history illustrates. As the President and fellow patriots pointed out today, we will find an American way to solve our problems. Do you think the new President has taken your sympathy and twisted it for his own SICK aims?

I am only guilty of saying something positive about the country. Yet, you show unmeasured resentment of what the President and I both said. If you would say something good about our country, I think I could listen to your ranting a little better. I now leave this thread.

[wmrs2]

I used the infant mortality rate in Cuba and Bosnia to make a point that our health care system has weaknesses. I don't for a moment believe that a communist or socialist government is better than a representative democracy. Facts are facts though, there are better health care systems than ours. We can and should have a better one. I'm not saying we should copy anyone's health care system but we would be foolish to not investigate those that out-perform ours and learn from them.


Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.



I'm as proud of being an American as anyone, as is the vast majority of those liberals you speak of in such a demeaning manner. Just an FYI, I'm sitting here looking at the shadow box on the wall behind this computer with my unit patches and my medals from my Army service. Among those is a Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster. You don't have to be a right-wing neo-con to have fought for your country. One of the things I take great pride in as an American is the right to criticize what I see as shortcomings and wrongs performed by my country. One of my favorite paintings is by Norman Rockwell and it is of a boy looking admirably up at his father, a man in work clothes, who is standing up in a town meeting and speaking. That personifies this country to me. We all have that freedom of speech and failing to see her shortcomings is much more dangerous than blindly backing the status quo all the time, in my opinion.

We would be very foolish if we copied Cuba's model of health care. What might be good for a small country can not be compared to a large country like the USA. Also, the statistics coming out of a communist country like Cuba can not be trusted. Their facts are not facts.

Sorry if you think I speak of liberals in a demeaning manner. My intention is to point out the Hegelian logic the liberals use. The term a right-wing neo-con is sarcastic and demeaning but liberals indiscriminately use it whenever a conservative praises his country.

"We all have that freedom of speech and failing to see her shortcomings is much more dangerous than blindly backing the status quo all the time, in my opinion." I agree with this statement but it also applies to liberals when they back communist and socialist propaganda. Socialist and capitalist are consistently making this charge of each other. Which side do you come down on? That would be interesting to know.

[wmrs2]

If it isn't the fault of America's health care system where does the fault lie? with me?

How do you know this is the best place in the world to be sick? Every metric I can find says we're near the best, but not the best.

Take my wife's disease. The best treatments in the world for that disease (and if you knew me personally you'd know I've researched the hell out of this) are in Barcelona, London, and Houston (MD Anderson). Two of those are in what you sneeringly refer to as socialist systems and the third is here in the USA. There are some folks in Canada, Australia, and Singapore that appear to be gaining on these three as is Jewish Medical Center on Long Island and the Ohio State Medical Center in Columbus. Our system isn't lousy. It's great if you can afford it. We can be so much better.
Yes, we can do better and I side with you in trying to do better. As to being your fault for being sick, of course it is not your fault. God has seen fit to rain on all men equally. Bad is going to happen to us all and it is none of our fault. We also receive good and that is not our fault either.

Maybe I should amend my statement to say that this is the best country in the world for me in which to be sick. Many Americans feel this way and that does not make us mean spirited. You have my sympathy and prayers. I certainly hope you well.

[mkemse]

We would be very foolish if we copied Cuba's model of health care. What might be good for a small country can not be compared to a large country like the USA. Also, the statistics coming out of a communist country like Cuba can not be trusted. Their facts are not facts.

Sorry if you think I speak of liberals in a demeaning manner. My intention is to point out the Hegelian logic the liberals use. The term a right-wing neo-con is sarcastic and demeaning but liberals indiscriminately use it whenever a conservative praises his country.

"We all have that freedom of speech and failing to see her shortcomings is much more dangerous than blindly backing the status quo all the time, in my opinion." I agree with this statement but it also applies to liberals when they back communist and socialist propaganda. Socialist and capitalist are consistently making this charge of each other. Which side do you come down on? That would be interesting to know.

I have NEVER backed any Communist or Social Propoganda or Philosophy and again do not apprciate being label A Communist or Scialist simply because I am a Democraitc, you seem to have this intense need to label all Democroats Socialists and Communists,simply because their or my views are not the same as yours, some may be communisrts, never met A Communist so i do not know,I have no Idea, I most Ceratinly are not, never have been never will be and do not apprciate being Labeled one becuase my views differ from yours, feel free to disagree with my views if you want, only without Reffering to me and Democrtas all time as Communist/Socialist, we aren't, we simply have different view onthings then you do, butthat does not make a a Communist or Socialt, it makes me an American Citize who view differ fro tohers, no more no less
I also have never seen you post any actual documentaion of any kind showing that all Democrats are Communists and Socialsts,you keep saying it but do not doucment where you saw this, where it was published or printed to show written documented and proof that They/We are all Communists

fini

[wmrs2]

I have NEVER backed any Communist or Social Propoganda or Philosophy and again do not apprciate being label A Communist or Scialist simply because I am a Democraitc, you seem to have this intense need to label all Democroats Socialists and Communists,simply because their or my views are not the same as yours, some may be communisrts, never met A Communist so i do not know,I have no Idea, I most Ceratinly are not, never have been never will be and do not apprciate being Labeled one becuase my views differ from yours, feel free to disagree with my views if you want, only without Reffering to me and Democrtas all time as Communist/Socialist, we aren't, we simply have different view onthings then you do, butthat does not make a a Communist or Socialt, it makes me an American Citize who view differ fro tohers, no more no less
I also have never seen you post any actual documentaion of any kind showing that all Democrats are Communists and Socialsts,you keep saying it but do not doucment where you saw this, where it was published or printed to show written documented and proof that They/We are all Communists

fini
First, I have never said all Democrats are communist. I don't believe that either. I said I would not call you a communist. As far as I know I have kept that pledge. Here you have your feelings hurt for no reason.

As far as "some" Democrats having leanings to the political left, that is a fact. Many Democrats will admit that. In discussing political positions and philosophy, it is a recognized fact that communism, socialism, and liberals have political philosophies that lean to the left. They have much theory in common. Liberal Democrats are on the political left and they are more socialistic than other Democrats. It is not a sin to be a liberal. Most communist claim to be liberal. If you keep saying you are a liberal, many people will think you have communistic and socialistic tendencies. I can not help that. That is your fault, not mine.

If you are interested in not being labeled with socialist or communist, you should do some reading about the Blue Dog Democrats. These people are conservative Democrats. They often vote with Republicans on conservative issues in Congress and this angers the liberal Democrats. The liberals who lead the Democrat Party do not care for the Blue Dogs but in order to keep control in Congress, they tolerate them. But, that is the nature of politics. If you are going to participate on a political forum, you will have to operate within the frame of these categories or nobody will understand to what you refer or what you believe.

Right wing, left wing, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, capitalist, fascist, democratic, etc. are just words. You remember this old statement don't you? "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I don't know how true this is because I have seen words do a lot of damage when they are used to insult and accuse others of wrong doing but on this particular forum, if we do not use these words, what ones do you suggest we replace them with?

[mkemse]

first, i have never said all democrats are communist. I don't believe that either. I said i would not call you a communist. As far as i know i have kept that pledge. Here you have your feelings hurt for no reason.

As far as "some" democrats having leanings to the political left, that is a fact. Many democrats will admit that. In discussing political positions and philosophy, it is a recognized fact that communism, socialism, and liberals have political philosophies that lean to the left. They have much theory in common. Liberal democrats are on the political left and they are more socialistic than other democrats. It is not a sin to be a liberal. Most communist claim to be liberal. If you keep saying you are a liberal, many people will think you have communistic and socialistic tendencies. I can not help that. That is your fault, not mine.

If you are interested in not being labeled with socialist or communist, you should do some reading about the blue dog democrats. These people are conservative democrats. They often vote with republicans on conservative issues in congress and this angers the liberal democrats. The liberals who lead the democrat party do not care for the blue dogs but in order to keep control in congress, they tolerate them. But, that is the nature of politics. If you are going to participate on a political forum, you will have to operate within the frame of these categories or nobody will understand to what you refer or what you believe.

Right wing, left wing, liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, capitalist, fascist, democratic, etc. Are just words. You remember this old statement don't you? "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." i don't know how true this is because i have seen words do a lot of damage when they are used to insult and accuse others of wrong doing but on this particular forum, if we do not use these words, what ones do you suggest we replace them with?



fini

[MMI]

OK - this debate is meant to be measuring capitalism against socialism, by comparing various countries' healthcare systems with each other, and that's all very fine, but I think we must just stop casting slurs at each other about who is more or less American than who. So far, Sen. McCarthy has not posted to this thread (assuming he's still alive!) and I'd rather he didn't.

I'll do my best to behave too (at least no-one has accused me of being un-American - lol).

We seem to have established that the primary reason for eschewing a state-sponsored heathcare system is that it is wrong to reward people who try to cheat the system, by giving them the benefits of a public health service at the expense of others. I agree. It is wrong. But as has already been pointed out, it is even more wrong to deny people who are not cheats, but who genuinely cannot afford treatment.

So this brings out an admission of something I haven't owned up to before: sometimes "free" healthcare services do provide treatment to people who have not paid into the system. In the UK, readers of the Daily Mail (I must be careful about the aspersions I cast ... see above) rail and rant and have apoplectic fits about the hoardes of Afghans and Pakistanis who enter the country illegally, sign on for unemployment benefits, march their four wives into hospital so they can be delivered of their babies for free, and then try to blow up our buses and underground stations. Yes, I admit, these systems are open to abuse. Yet the NHS survives, and so do we. That's because the true level of abuse is low. It isn't easy to cheat the system, especially if you can't read or speak English, and I would venture to suggest that most successful cheats owe their success to a lazy or inefficient clerk rather than to their own skillful manipulations.

And a lazy or inefficient clerk in a private healthcare system will forget to bill some people.

It has also been said that a private system will allow people to (a) prioritise their spending on health - some will want cover for everything, others only for accident and emergncy care, and (b) to exercise their freedom of choice. OK - that's fair. I don't have much to say about that, except that I don't think those are important freedoms in this context. Freedom of expression is one thing, freedom to decide who will cure you is another.

But I would point out that, here in the UK, I can choose who will be my GP, and if I am to be hospitalised, I can persuade him to send me to a London teaching hospital rather than the local city hospital, if I think it would be better for me.

Furthermore, you won't be excluded from the treatment of some disease you are prone to, or which already exists at the time you take out your policy. If the health service can treat you, it will.

Finally, I think that the chemical companies of the world have demonstrated perfectly that competition under capitalism does not force prices down. The prices of medicines are maintained at artificially high levels for far too long, supposedly to recoup R&D costs. Frankly, I don't believe it. I think competition under capitalism exists only for as long as it takes for a tacit cartel to come about, where the chemical companies do not sell their drugs below a certain price level to cushion their profits, although they might compete with each other above those prices.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Yes, we can do better and I side with you in trying to do better. As to being your fault for being sick, of course it is not your fault. God has seen fit to rain on all men equally. Bad is going to happen to us all and it is none of our fault. We also receive good and that is not our fault either.

Maybe I should amend my statement to say that this is the best country in the world for me in which to be sick. Many Americans feel this way and that does not make us mean spirited. You have my sympathy and prayers. I certainly hope you well.

So God did it it me? Wow. So God must love the social democracies more because they have better health care?

You use Medicare, that medical safety net system that is paid for with taxes to cover your own needs. Therefore I'm guessing that you have that Social Security deposit made every month. That comes from taxes too.

[wmrs2]

So God did it it me? Wow. So God must love the social democracies more because they have better health care?

You use Medicare, that medical safety net system that is paid for with taxes to cover your own needs. Therefore I'm guessing that you have that Social Security deposit made every month. That comes from taxes too.
You really have been damaged if you interpret what I said to be anything but sympathetic to your situation. I don't blame God for anything. A favorite statement of an atheist friend of mine is "that shit happens."

For the record, I do not make SS payments or withdraws. I would like to participate but I can not.

[wmrs2]

OK - this debate is meant to be measuring capitalism against socialism, by comparing various countries' healthcare systems with each other, and that's all very fine, but I think we must just stop casting slurs at each other about who is more or less American than who. So far, Sen. McCarthy has not posted to this thread (assuming he's still alive!) and I'd rather he didn't.

I'll do my best to behave too (at least no-one has accused me of being un-American - lol)..

I do not like McCarthyism either but a sensible analysis of the political condition of the USA should not be compared to McCarthyism. Neither should a person be condemned for giving praise to his country. As far a slurs go, it is best to not hand out any slurs. Slurs,on the other hand, do not bother me because it is so easy to point out that the person handing out the slurs is usually the person guilty of this type of bigotry. Usually the one calling others fanatics are that themselves. The reason you feel that you have not been called un-American is that you are respectful to the ideas of others. You appear to like new ideas and challenges. That is the way you should be.

I would like to be more that way, but every time I make a positive comment, I have to take time to defend the comment because I am challenged by people who can not tolerate differences of opinions. It is not a good thing that people who differ from the opinions of others is a fanatic. That is simply a false assumption.

If your political philosophy is to the far left, it is only reasonable to know that those on the far right will differ with you. If a person can not tolerate this fact, political debate should not be a forum for their discourse. If I make a statement that is to the right of politics, I would be stupid to think a person on the left would not challenge me. I would even be more stupid if I retaliated by calling names. By pointing out that another person holds certain beliefs that puts them on the right or left is not name calling and having a different opinion is not narrow mindedness. I call it fun.

[mkemse]

ANYONE who uses Medicare, is using a 100% Government Financed Medical Servie. it is pure Socialism, the Goverment controls EVERY aspect of Medicare, Premiums, drug costs, doctorss fees (beter know as assignment, some Doctors accept assignment other do not, i you accept it it means you het what the GOVERNMENT feels the service is worth rather the whatit may actualy be worth) ect I have been on it for 9 years out of inabilibty to afford Private insurace so i recieive it through my disability, check
But it is still 100% Socialised Medical Insurance it is run by The Social Security Adm, which is 100% governeent owned and operated
So much for Sicialism and bein a Socialst, if you use Medicare you are using a Socialist form of health insurance, plain and simple

[wmrs2]

ANYONE who uses Medicare, is using a 100% Government Financed Medical Servie. it is pure Socialism, the Goverment controls EVERY aspect of Medicare, Premiums, drug costs, doctorss fees (beter know as assignment, some Doctors accept assignment other do not, i you accept it it means you het what the GOVERNMENT feels the service is worth rather the whatit may actualy be worth) ect I have been on it for 9 years out of inabilibty to afford Private insurace so i recieive it through my disability, check
But it is still 100% Socialised Medical Insurance it is run by The Social Security Adm, which is 100% governeent owned and operated
So much for Sicialism and bein a Socialst, if you use Medicare you are using a Socialist form of health insurance, plain and simple
I pay a monthly premium for medicare coverage and what medicare does not pay my supplementary insurance does pay. My medicine is paid by supplemental insurance too. i am not against socialized medicine. There are many social programs that are good and necessary. I was really impressed yesterday of how Oboma handled the public health forum. I will be interested to see how things work out as a result of the collaboration that is taking place.

People should take yesterday's forum as an example of how to behave on this forum. Nobody acted like they had a chip on their shoulders and dared each other to knock it off. Everybody knew what they were whether liberal or conservative. Had some smart ass made critical remark about Bill Clinton or G Bush there would have been a fight right there in the forum. Everybody needs to know when it is time to shut there mouths so the people's business can be done, don't you agree?

[Thorne]

The prices of medicines are maintained at artificially high levels for far too long, supposedly to recoup R&D costs. Frankly, I don't believe it. I think competition under capitalism exists only for as long as it takes for a tacit cartel to come about, where the chemical companies do not sell their drugs below a certain price level to cushion their profits, although they might compete with each other above those prices.
I worked for a pharmaceutical company at one time, a small one, and I can assure you that the R&D costs are astronomical! Even minor medicines went through many months, if not years, of development and testing, and not all of them were successful. So when you are paying those high prices for the drugs that let you lead a comfortable life, you are also having to pay for the research for other drugs which never made it to market.

Add to that the high cost of manufacture for those drugs, too. From the top of my head, every raw material which was purchased for production had to be rigorously tested to meet FDA standards. Every step in the production process had to be tested, repeatedly. Repeated sterilizing of equipment, relatively high cost of training production personel, as compared to average factory workers, added to the cost. Testing continued through the packaging process and even sampling from the warehouse.

That's not to say that the drug companies don't pad their prices, but after seeing the process in action, I can't fault them too much.

[mkemse]

I worked for a pharmaceutical company at one time, a small one, and I can assure you that the R&D costs are astronomical! Even minor medicines went through many months, if not years, of development and testing, and not all of them were successful. So when you are paying those high prices for the drugs that let you lead a comfortable life, you are also having to pay for the research for other drugs which never made it to market.

Add to that the high cost of manufacture for those drugs, too. From the top of my head, every raw material which was purchased for production had to be rigorously tested to meet FDA standards. Every step in the production process had to be tested, repeatedly. Repeated sterilizing of equipment, relatively high cost of training production personel, as compared to average factory workers, added to the cost. Testing continued through the packaging process and even sampling from the warehouse.

That's not to say that the drug companies don't pad their prices, but after seeing the process in action, I can't fault them too much.

My contnetion is not so much the cost of Medication, i know R&D is costly and even ore so when the FDA does not approve the drug for sales, butthe R&D cost doesn
t explain the insane cost of Rooms at a Hositpal or a Docotors office visit, if they give youmeds it is sample that they do not pay for meidcation costs are hgiht, but so are Doctors fees, Hosptial fees ect

[MMI]

I'll have to take your word for that, Thorne. Grudgingly, and noting that, as an ex-employee, you gained from what they did.

Although I know my view is cynical, I do not see why I should regard chemical company chiefs as any different from banking bosses or motor-car manufacturers.

[MMI]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to book in at the Hilton, mkemse, and ask the doctor to visit you there?

[mkemse]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to book in at the Hilton, mkemse, and ask the doctor to visit you there?

Yes but he would still charge me for a "house call" :), but yes it would be cheaper

[Belgarold]

I worked for a pharmaceutical company at one time, a small one, and I can assure you that the R&D costs are astronomical! Even minor medicines went through many months, if not years, of development and testing, and not all of them were successful. So when you are paying those high prices for the drugs that let you lead a comfortable life, you are also having to pay for the research for other drugs which never made it to market.

Add to that the high cost of manufacture for those drugs, too. From the top of my head, every raw material which was purchased for production had to be rigorously tested to meet FDA standards. Every step in the production process had to be tested, repeatedly. Repeated sterilizing of equipment, relatively high cost of training production personel, as compared to average factory workers, added to the cost. Testing continued through the packaging process and even sampling from the warehouse.

That's not to say that the drug companies don't pad their prices, but after seeing the process in action, I can't fault them too much.

And still somehow they are able to make astronomical profits and sell their product in other countries at a great loss.

I am not against corporations or companies. I owned my own business at one time and my brother still does. But large corporations become behemoths eating up people and profits. And why isn't there a hue and cry from the right about us subsidizing low-cost drugs in other countries?

I am just saying making profits as the drug companies and health insurance companies do, on the backs of everyday Americans is wrong and hurts the economy.

[Thorne]

My contnetion is not so much the cost of Medication, i know R&D is costly and even ore so when the FDA does not approve the drug for sales, butthe R&D cost doesn
t explain the insane cost of Rooms at a Hositpal or a Docotors office visit, if they give youmeds it is sample that they do not pay for meidcation costs are hgiht, but so are Doctors fees, Hosptial fees ect

No, the "insane" cost of rooms at the hospital are because of the losses the hospital has to take by treating anybody who walks through their doors, whether they can pay or not. It's also caused by the high cost of all of the equipment they have to maintain in order to run batteries of needless tests to cover their asses against those people who will sue them for millions if they catch a cold in the hospital.

The same with Doctor's fees. Doctor's pay exhorbitant insurance premiums to cover their practices because our legal system allows anyone to sue for inane reasons. Did you twist your ankle? Better run a full set of X-rays, and maybe an MRI, just to make sure you didn't fracture something, even though there's no evidence that you did, and you're not really in any pain, but let's give you pain meds, which you can't pay for because the costs are too high, so we'll sue the Doctor for overmedicating.

I get tired of hearing these same old arguments! Those who have, charge too much. Those who don't have, want everything for free. It's a simple case of economics! If the price is too high, DON'T BUY IT!

Of course, everyone expects to live to be 100 and have perfect health, and if they don't, well SOMEBODY better figure out a way to fix it! Just don't expect them to pay for it.

[MMI]

Public health services are a good fix, not perfect, but good.

[Thorne]

And why isn't there a hue and cry from the right about us subsidizing low-cost drugs in other countries?

Because there is such a hue and cry from the LEFT because we aren't doing enough to help the poor people overseas.

You want to send food to starving kids in Nigeria? The cost of food goes up in the US. You're going to send drugs to Kazakstan? The cost of drugs goes up in the US.

But the real problem is that the drug companies make such a large profit, isn't it? They're dealing with sick people here! They're responsible for people's lives, aren't they? They should be giving the stuff away! Why the hell should they make any money doing it?

Just tell me this, people. If the drug companies decide to just give up and shut down, who's going to step in and take their place? Especially if they're no longer allowed to make a profit? You want your drugs manufactured under Federal management? By the lowest bidder? I don't think so!

[MMI]

And still somehow they are able to make astronomical profits and sell their product in other countries at a great loss.



Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.

[Torq]

OK, Folks it's that time again for my famous


ENOUGH

Comment!!!!!!

Stay ON TOPIC and stop the ""MUD SLINGING,,PERSONAL ATTACKS

There will not be another warning!!!!!!

Be Well
T

[Thorne]

Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.
That may be so, I don't know. But even so, what of it? It's a business. That's what businesses do. If you have a product which people need, or want, you make money. Tons of money, if your smart.

[mkemse]

No, the "insane" cost of rooms at the hospital are because of the losses the hospital has to take by treating anybody who walks through their doors, whether they can pay or not. It's also caused by the high cost of all of the equipment they have to maintain in order to run batteries of needless tests to cover their asses against those people who will sue them for millions if they catch a cold in the hospital.

The same with Doctor's fees. Doctor's pay exhorbitant insurance premiums to cover their practices because our legal system allows anyone to sue for inane reasons. Did you twist your ankle? Better run a full set of X-rays, and maybe an MRI, just to make sure you didn't fracture something, even though there's no evidence that you did, and you're not really in any pain, but let's give you pain meds, which you can't pay for because the costs are too high, so we'll sue the Doctor for overmedicating.

I get tired of hearing these same old arguments! Those who have, charge too much. Those who don't have, want everything for free. It's a simple case of economics! If the price is too high, DON'T BUY IT!

Of course, everyone expects to live to be 100 and have perfect health, and if they don't, well SOMEBODY better figure out a way to fix it! Just don't expect them to pay for it.

Thanks

[Belgarold]

Do you really believe they sell stuff in other countries at a great loss? I don't.

The stuff they sell in Africa, you'd regard as old-fashioned medicine, long since superceded by something else (or maybe the same stuff in a new package). They made thier pile in the West, but this provides a steady trail income.

And the stuff they give away in Africa is out-of-date medicine that would otherwise be destroyed.

Yes, this is true. I wasn't even considering these 'giveaways' but the stuff they sell in Canada, for instance, is sold at a great deal less because the country will not allow them to sell at too high of a profit.

Thorne, I am not against them making a profit, but there should be a limit on this, yes. And as a follow-on, what the Health Insurance industry does is criminal. You pay your premium and when something happens and you need the insurance the insurance company does all it can to not do their jobs, pay out. And bean counters let people die every day.

How much is enough profit to make on the misery of every day Americans?

[Thorne]

what the Health Insurance industry does is criminal. You pay your premium and when something happens and you need the insurance the insurance company does all it can to not do their jobs, pay out. And bean counters let people die every day.
The insurance companies are another story, and I have little or nothing good to say about them. But consider, if the Feds take over the management of healthcare, a good portion of those insurance companies won't be needed. And all those bean counters will be looking for jobs. With the Feds. Doing the same thing they're doing now!

[SadisticNature]

The accounting of drugs is incredibly difficult.

If you consider the cost of a drug per unit to be:

Total cost of drug including production and research costs / units sold

Then yes companies sell drugs at a loss.

If you consider the cost of a drug to be:

Production cost of one unit (including labour)

then companies generally sell at a profit everywhere.

However, in many cases, drugs are provided to poor countries as part of the 2.5% of revenue that most organizations spend on charity these days (ala Google). Most companies consider this good branding as it makes it harder to attack them on people dying because they can't afford care.

The US has the worst drug prices even though it doesn't have the highest per capita income because most countries are able to negotiate at a national or state/province-wide level for drug prices. A company is far more willing to sell 2,000,000 units of medication at a smaller price than the small number of units that a particular insurance plan or single hospital would negotiate. It's just not worth the companies time to negotiate over a sale of 10 units.

[SadisticNature]

I think the job description changes a little bit.

After all medicare and medicaid are the two most efficient plans in the country, and there are far fewer cases of them aggressively trying to deny care.

For profit insurance is part of the reason costs are out of control. Taking 23% profits, introducing a huge amount of overhead with high level management salaries and benefits, and saying that there will be savings to the consumer is in general quite laughable. There can be other benefits such as diversity of options and varying levels of quality (pay for premium care etc.), but to say that private industry lowers costs is generally erroneous.

[steelish]

The original post asked, "Do people deserve universal healthcare?


In my opinion, that's not really an answerable question. Healthcare is not an individual right. It is a purchasable good, therefore it is NOT the role of the government to get involved.

Do people deserve a place to live?
Do people deserve a job?
Do people deserve a car?

NO! People have the RIGHT to life. They have the RIGHT to become individuals, with thoughts and opinions. People have the RIGHT to feel what they want and express their opinions. People have the RIGHT to be free and pursue knowledge.

We've lost sight of the fact that having the government provide us with healthcare is against our constitution! Everything America stands for was based upon our rights as humans, and the freedom to live as we see fit.

So basically, what I am saying is that people deserve many things, but I think the original post was stated incorrectly. I do not feel that people have a RIGHT to healthcare. Nor do I think the government has the right to force me to purchase it, which is what is written into the bill.

[DuncanONeil]

Medicare and Medicaid are far from efficient. Were that truly they would not be hemorrhaging money!
Insurance is part of the reason costs are high, but not all of it, Government regulation is also part of the cause, as well as fear of lawsuit. I question your claim of 23% profits. But even at that level their profits are not the highest rate of return!
As for lowering of costs, private industry can do just that. Providers of insurance are forced to compete for small pools of clients, which increase the level of costs. AN example the flies in the face of your claim is the segment of the health care industry dealing with laser eye surgery. An item not covered by most insurers. Making the payment the responsibility of the customer. Since inception the equipment has improved and the costs have been reduced. What was the cause? Competition! If the customer is not happy with the cost or service they will go to another provider, not possible under most insurance plans.


I think the job description changes a little bit.

After all medicare and medicaid are the two most efficient plans in the country, and there are far fewer cases of them aggressively trying to deny care.

For profit insurance is part of the reason costs are out of control. Taking 23% profits, introducing a huge amount of overhead with high level management salaries and benefits, and saying that there will be savings to the consumer is in general quite laughable. There can be other benefits such as diversity of options and varying levels of quality (pay for premium care etc.), but to say that private industry lowers costs is generally erroneous.

[SadisticNature]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

[VaAugusta]

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

According to Macroeconomics Principles and Applications by Robert E. Hall and Marc Lieberman, transfer payments are are approximately 12% of GDP, and military spending is at around 4% GDP.

This is in contrast to what I have quoted you on. Please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.

[steelish]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.

If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

My question for conservatives in the states is:

How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

I'm not disputing how Canadians and any other country with Universal Healthcare view it. In AMERICA, healthcare is NOT A RIGHT. As per our Constitution, rights are bestowed upon us by God, NOT by the government. I personally do not care how successful and/or horrid Universal Healthcare might be for countries that have it. What I feel and what I am saying is that in America, it is not a right and is unconstitutional for the government to be involved with.

Oh, and by the way, I am "middle class" and have no problem with my healthcare (and I pay for it myself, it's not an employee benefit). In America, NO ONE can be denied medical care. All you need to do is go to a county run hospital and they have to treat you, no matter what. I know, I've done it myself when I was homeless...once upon a time.

[SadisticNature]

The constitution doesn't mention health care at all. This doesn't make dealing with health care unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if it is done in violation of the constitution. Plenty of legal things in the US are done by government that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Regarding the Economics textbook I refer you to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

In particular note that by calling wars "Special Appropriations" their cost is not listed in the budget entirely. With special appropriations actually included military spending skyrockets.

Even without the special appropriations the following is a breakdown of expenses related to the military:

1. 481.4 Billion in DoD non appropriated spending
2. 145.2 Billion in War on Terror non appropriated spending
3. 39.4 Billion for Veterans Affairs
4. 34.3 Billion for Homeland Security

Social Security costs:

608 Billion which is more than paid for by Social Security Deductions (927.2 Billion).
386 Billion is spent on Medicare
209 Billion on Medicaid and SCHIP.
324 Billion on all Welfare, EI and other such programs.

The total is approximately 1.5 Trillion (as interest in national debt is not social security and shouldn't be included in this line item).

In comparison the government debt at the end of 2007 is 5.04 trillion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget

While the projected government debt at the end of 2008 is 10.8 trillion. As the deficit of declared items was approximately 240 billion dollars or approximately 0.25 trillion (rounded up for convenience), the total special appropriations is:

10.8 -0.25 -5.04 = 5.51 Trillion Dollars. A number which radically dwarfs
social security spending. The vast majority of this are the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There is a point to be made that the entirety of federal level social programs is not as insignificant as I claimed, but trying to argue that military spending is only 4% of actual spending is rather erroneous.

[steelish]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

[VaAugusta]

I would like to not respond as I can see there's no getting through to you, but since you made such a lengthy post, I don't want people to get the impression that all your numbers add up to anything.

Therefore I will post using your own sources now:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

4.8% on defense.. my bad.

And if I may quote your source:

Figures shown in this article do not reflect the actual appropriations by Congress for Fiscal Year 2008

[Lion]

Please refrain from posting about things you have no idea about.


I would like to not respond as I can see there's no getting through to you

I don't care if you studied the principles of Economics and Political theory, and that if your knowledge in the subject is far suprior to everyone elses on the subject. But twice you said something to another member that wasn't called for. Present your facts, theories and opinions, and let the other decide for themselves. If someone isn't getting your point, then try to rephrase your arguement, but please don't include these sort of comments in the future.



It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.

You know what, I completely disagree with your stance on healthcare. After what my family has gone through in the last couple of years, and what my friend's family has gone through, I think it's inhumane to not have it free for everyone.

BUT

For the first time, I actually got what you meant, being on the other side of this topic, and respect that.

[SadisticNature]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary). Note that the budget includes the interest on the debt, so that is not a factor to worry about in this calculation. As an economist, you should have some experience at estimating hidden information using publicly available financial data.

Again as per your own quotations of the article, the appropriations items are not included in the budgets. I continue to contend that claiming defense spending is only 4.8% of GDP when the appropriations dwarf this amount and most of those appropriations are related to wars is rather disingenuous. It may be true in a certain sense, but only in the sense that the budget doesn't reflect the spending of the country at all since all the appropriations dwarf it and hide the real picture.

I'm sure if the situation were reversed, and the military spending was entirely on the budget while all the social programs were appropriations and I claimed social spending was 0% of GDP, and military spending was 40% you'd cry foul just as quickly, and correctly so.

Also using % of GDP is misleading as it doesn't given a clear fiscal picture of a country given widely disparate tax policies. What is the federal government revenue as a % of GDP? If you're spending 4.8% of GDP on military and your revenue is under 20% of GDP then non-appropriated military spending is going to be over 25% of the budget.

[SadisticNature]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

[oww-that-hurt]

We in Montana need a new Senator that remembers what a working stiff earns here. In my house we are working middle class that can't afford health insurance but make too much for 'assistance', not that we would take it anyway. We don't have cable/satellite TV, a cell phone, high-speed internet (just this 56K modem), new cars, don't go to movies or fancy restaurants or even RENT movies, and the list is endless of what some folks think they need but we do without. This isn't a 'oh-poor-me' stand, just background info. Our Senator wants to fine us over $3,000 if we don't get insurance. Insurance for us would be over $1,000 per month, which will just never happen. We can cut a few more corners (lower thermostat, less driving, etc.) to cover the 'fine'. We still won't have insurance, but also won't be able to pay for medical and dental and eye-care check-ups, which we now do. So much for preventive care. We even have enough budget left over to donate a BUNCH of food to the food bank (Pantry Partners). Well, with the 'fine', there goes that item, too. It all just gets under my skin. Sorry for the rant. Y'all have a nice Christmas!

[MMI]

Do people deserve a place to live?
Do people deserve a job?
Do people deserve a car?



IMHO, Yes, Yes and Of Course Not.

I might have crazy principles, but I'd rather house my family in a state-owned home than let them freeze, even if by freezing they nobly upheld their right to freedom.

As for entitlement to work, so long as I'm not press-ganged into the service of the state, or enslaved by some other person or organisation, I would be glad of the opportunity to work for pay, rather than having to depend upon others for alms and succour. If such jobs are available, I believe I am entitled to one.

You might think a car equates to the right to a home, or a job, or to health care, but I imagine few others would.

[steelish]

Actually this is nothing new. The US has consistently privatized many essential services, in some cases with monopolies. If you're so convinced its unconstitutional feel free to quote the portion of the constitution or a particular amendment it violates. Since very similar things have happened before you are also welcome to cite court cases where things of a similar vein were called unconstitutional. I think you are unlikely to find any.

As for requiring you to purchase healthcare: If you face a dire health problem that requires expensive medical care the most likely scenario is that you go broke.

At this point you are likely to be unable to work due to health complications, and as a result will be on 1) Welfare and 2) Medicaid.

Since the government will have to pay for all these situations, I see no problem with the government levying a specific tax on those who choose not to buy healthcare in order to pay for these added costs. The government already levies certain specific taxes and benefits for social problems/boons. Most income tax benefits fall into this category.

We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

[SadisticNature]

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

[MMI]

The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

[DuncanONeil]

I think the idea that health care is not a right is unique to those countries without universal medicare. Ask almost any Canadian including the vast majority of Conservatives up here and they see it as a right. This is the same in Britain and France where public systems are prevalent.
Those in the US are granted an inalienable right to life. That being the case no one in the US can, even pre-Obama, can be denied medical care.


If the majority of Americans do not see public health care as a basic right then public health-care will likely fail. The current senate bill is so weak I think they'd be better off blocking it and trying again.

Public health care should fail. The public health care bills in the US are not about health care. They are an unconstitutional intrusion into the private life. The current Senate bill is not the least about health care it is about control, and control only! It is also something the proponents are lying about, some because they do not know and others to hide things.


As for drug costs in Canada its not that the prices are regulated, its that the government can negotiate for the medications in massive quantities. If every American in the state of California was on the same drug plan and the insurance company running said plan went to the pharmaceutical companies to get a bulk rate negotiated on medications, prices would fall dramatically. The American system is made up of so many tiny pieces, none of which could get good deals and as such costs skyrocket.

There are 1700 insurance providers in the US. Yet they can not all compete against each other. How is adding one company supposed to provide competition, especially when that new company has unfair advantages? Then there is the requirement that all "qualified" providers be in the Exchange. The Government will tell them what they must cover and how much they can charge for their product. This does nothing to control costs.

My question for conservatives in the states is:


How does it make sense to tax the middle class so heavily they can't pay for health care and then leave them without medical care when they get sick in order to pay for things like Corporate Bailouts (Auto, Banking, etc..) and Foreign Wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..)?

That is why the people actually do want reform, but reform that accomplishes something. There are all kinds of things that can be done to make changes that will lower health costs. yet none of them are being considered.


Social Security, Welfare and other such programs are a tiny amount of spending compared to wars and bailouts.

The Social programs in the budget take up by far the largets part of the budget. Wars and bailouts are not part of the budget process!

[DuncanONeil]

The constitution doesn't mention health care at all. This doesn't make dealing with health care unconstitutional. Something is unconstitutional if it is done in violation of the constitution.


You obviously do not understand the Constitution. The very fact that the Constitution does not mention health care is prima facie evidence that the Government involvement in this so called health care issue is unconstitutional!

As for the attempt to prove your point about Government expentitures, your numbers are plainly wrong-headed. I, however, do not have enough time to formulate the facts for you presently.

[DuncanONeil]

It is unconstitutional for the government to REQUIRE me to purchase something from a private party. THAT is written into the current bill.


The Constitution does not grant the Government an enumerated right over health care.

[DuncanONeil]

The figures in the article don't include appropriations, however the total appropriations are included in the national debt, and can in fact be estimated by calculating the change in debt (actual) and subtracting the change in debt (budgetary).


Read that again and see if it makes sense to you?

[DuncanONeil]

The only thing that passed this mish-mash of a bill was bribery! Bribery that the leader fo the Senate praises! That means the Senate has made a liar of the President who promised that there would be "no more business as usual in Washington"


We have a Congress pushing hard to get this thing past cloture by Christmas. In fact, they plan to vote on it tomorrow morning.

To get this thing to a cloture, Bill Nelson has been offered exemptions on Medicare/Medicaid cutbacks for three counties in Florida. HUH? I thought there WEREN'T going to be any cutbacks at all! I guess bribery (again) is what is needed to get bills passed, rather than Congressmen working on what their constituents want.

As for unconstitutional; by FORCING me (or anyone else) to purchase healthcare, they are taking away free choice.

[DuncanONeil]

The Government being able to "draft" for a military force is not in the Constitution. It is supported, however, yet that does not mitigate free choice. The Government can not "force" you to serve in the Army against your will. As a citizen you still have a choice.

The Government can not "force" purchase of anything, taxes are "voluntary", laws are not part of the Constitution, and we already discussed the military.

Other things "calculated in income taxes"? Just what do you think those things are?


Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

[DuncanONeil]

Several millions of American choose to not have health insurance. Yet the Liberal Nobility are counting those same people as victims.


The trouble with free choice is this: if I choose not to buy healthcare, and fritter my money away on trivialities, then should I became seriously ill, the state would not leave me to die, as it should.

How many Americans "choose" not to have healthcare?

[steelish]

Where does the constitution grant you unlimited free choice?

The current form of the constitution allows conscription in wartime. It is legal for your government to pass a bill forcing you to serve in the army against your will. You seem to think you have this magical thing called unlimited and total freedom as a constitutional right. That isn't the case at all.

Back in reality, the constitution does not make it illegal for the government to force you to buy something, force you to pay taxes, force you to abide by laws, or force you to serve in the military. It also doesn't make it illegal for you to have to pay specific taxes on things like alcohol or tobacco. All sorts of other bonuses and penalties are applied to taxes. Paying a penalty for refusing to get coverage is not any different than paying a penalty/tax or receiving a bonus for any of the other things calculated in income tax.

A draft that goes into effect for a specific condition of the country and isn't done for perpetuity is NOT the same as forcing a citizen to purchase something they don't want. Besides, not only do you pay a penalty, you also are no longer considered a legal citizen. So in that respect it is NOTHING like a tax. I already have health care that I purchased on my own. I like it. I want to keep it, however, there are many who do not have health care and don't want to spend their money on it. That is their choice. They earned the money, they get to choose how to spend it. If this bill passes, the government will regulate the health industry and drive costs beyond what any private insurance company can cover, given what most citizens can afford to pay in premiums. Then the government will step in as "savior" with a single payer system. Heh.

Personally, I cannot trust the government with what they feel will be an adequate healthcare system. They screw up too much for me to feel comfortable. Medicaid and Medicare already have panels restricting care...the Post Office is in shambles (I know, I work there), TARP is a joke, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are basically holes that the government keeps pouring money into.

As to free choice...isn't that what Roe v Wade is all about? The choice to do as you wish with your own body? So now we're going to make a mockery of that with this bill?

[SadisticNature]

1. The constitution doesn't mention the FBI therefore the FBI is unconstitutional.

2. The constitution doesn't mention the CIA therefore the CIA is unconstitutional etc..

This is clearly wrong!

Something is unconstitutional only if there is something in the constitution that expressly forbids it, or something in the constitution guaranteeing the opposite. The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If you prefer from dictionary.com under legal dictionary:

contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution; especially : violative of a person's rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

This means if you are claiming the health law is unconstitutional you need to point out the specific part of the constitution that is violated. It is you who do not understand the constitution if you think that the government has no authority at all over anything that is neither permitted nor forbidden by the Constitution.

As for no longer considered a legal citizen, can you provide a source on this or is it another unsubstantiated claim from fox news?

As for the messed up budgetary system in the states, you can replace all instances of my use of the word budget, by "federal government total expenditure including appropriations" (now isn't that a ridiculously long mouthful). The fact that the government moves items outside the budget doesn't mean the expenses mysteriously vanish, there is a reason that that debt skyrockets far faster than the budgetary deficit.

As for my statement you claim is non-sensical.

Fact: All expenses in the US are either contained in the budget or are special appropriations.

Fact: The national debt grew from 5.1 Billion to 10.8 billion over 1 fiscal year.

Fact: The budgetary deficit for said fiscal year was X.

Conclusion: Special appropriations were 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion -X.

If you prefer to take this in smaller steps: The budgetary change in the national debt was X, growing the national debt to 5.1 Billion + X.

The actual national debt was 10.8 billion dollars, which means that 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion - X is the total spent on special appropriations.

[Bren122]

what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

[steelish]

This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html?m od=rss_Today's_Most_Popular) might enlighten everyone

[SadisticNature]

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

[steelish]

It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.

The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.

The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.

In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.

I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

[Stealth694]

The thing I do NOT like about this health care bill is that there are so many rumors, questions, ect. I really do not know anything about this bill, seems the Politicians are more intersted in manipulating this potential gold mine.

[SadisticNature]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[steelish]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.


For one thing, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 WAS unconstitutional and went unchallenged. There is still much controversy surrounding it and it has had 200 amendments to it since it passed.

And, in the words that so many like to use...the Health Care bill is going to set PRECEDENCE for the possibility of other Congressional interference into our every day lives. I find it hard to believe that the proponents of this bill (the ones who are not politicians) are 100% certain that this bill will be good and right for the future of our country.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun ;))

[DuncanONeil]

My daughter has recently qualified for insurance with her employer. I wish I had had such a plan! It is a high deductible plan, I can't remember the deductible amount, and an additional sum each year. I believe $400, that can be used as need for health care. THE $400 ROLLS OVER, AT LEAST THE PART UNUSED, TO THE NEXT YEAR. In a short period of time the amount of the deductible is covered by this additional amount of money put in an account for her!
The administration will make this kind of consumer driven health care go the way of the Dodo if they are successful with their mandated and Government driven insurance.


A draft that goes into effect for a specific condition of the country and isn't done for perpetuity is NOT the same as forcing a citizen to purchase something they don't want. Besides, not only do you pay a penalty, you also are no longer considered a legal citizen. So in that respect it is NOTHING like a tax. I already have health care that I purchased on my own. I like it. I want to keep it, however, there are many who do not have health care and don't want to spend their money on it. That is their choice. They earned the money, they get to choose how to spend it. If this bill passes, the government will regulate the health industry and drive costs beyond what any private insurance company can cover, given what most citizens can afford to pay in premiums. Then the government will step in as "savior" with a single payer system. Heh.

Personally, I cannot trust the government with what they feel will be an adequate healthcare system. They screw up too much for me to feel comfortable. Medicaid and Medicare already have panels restricting care...the Post Office is in shambles (I know, I work there), TARP is a joke, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are basically holes that the government keeps pouring money into.

As to free choice...isn't that what Roe v Wade is all about? The choice to do as you wish with your own body? So now we're going to make a mockery of that with this bill?

[DuncanONeil]

The Constitution clearly states that any power not spelled out in that document is reserved to the states!!

The health, no insurance bill, is requiring people to purchase something very specific. That is a restriction on freedom of choice. If choice, ie Roe v Wade, is constitutional then this removal of choice is therby unconstitutional. Of course, that is logic and I am sure you will claim such is not a valid assertion since there is no chapter and verse that says as I claim. But then there is no chapter and verse in the Constitution FOR roe v Wade either!

Committing a felony removes your status as a full citizen!

Your comment re budget, debt, and deficit xxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xxxx x xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx. After reading the example I think I should retract the previous statement. Special appropriations are suppose to be either emergency items that, obviously, come up at in opportune times or items that are brought to the floor after the budgets have been completed. Unfortunately our Congressman seems to treat most things as emergencies!

The first formula presents an accurate picture the second does not!


1. The constitution doesn't mention the FBI therefore the FBI is unconstitutional.

2. The constitution doesn't mention the CIA therefore the CIA is unconstitutional etc..

This is clearly wrong!

Something is unconstitutional only if there is something in the constitution that expressly forbids it, or something in the constitution guaranteeing the opposite. The mere fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

If you prefer from dictionary.com under legal dictionary:

contrary to or failing to comply with a constitution; especially : violative of a person's rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

This means if you are claiming the health law is unconstitutional you need to point out the specific part of the constitution that is violated. It is you who do not understand the constitution if you think that the government has no authority at all over anything that is neither permitted nor forbidden by the Constitution.

As for no longer considered a legal citizen, can you provide a source on this or is it another unsubstantiated claim from fox news?

As for the messed up budgetary system in the states, you can replace all instances of my use of the word budget, by "federal government total expenditure including appropriations" (now isn't that a ridiculously long mouthful). The fact that the government moves items outside the budget doesn't mean the expenses mysteriously vanish, there is a reason that that debt skyrockets far faster than the budgetary deficit.

As for my statement you claim is non-sensical.

Fact: All expenses in the US are either contained in the budget or are special appropriations.

Fact: The national debt grew from 5.1 Billion to 10.8 billion over 1 fiscal year.

Fact: The budgetary deficit for said fiscal year was X.

Conclusion: Special appropriations were 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion -X.

If you prefer to take this in smaller steps: The budgetary change in the national debt was X, growing the national debt to 5.1 Billion + X.

The actual national debt was 10.8 billion dollars, which means that 10.8 Billion - 5.1 Billion - X is the total spent on special appropriations.

[DuncanONeil]

Except that the Governments intrusion into commerce is limited to interstate commerce. Insurance providers are prohibited form interstate competition. Therefore the commerce clause is moot!


what COULD it be challenged under- congressional over reach and states rights? Health has been traditionally viewed as an area of states control. Medicare and Medicaid are much more limited than the proposed reforms and may not wholly serve as a precedent; by contrast they do establish a precedent of federal input into the health system.
the government could counter-argue that it has the power to introduce the reforms under the commerce clause- it does seem to be a more solid argument.

Roe v Wade was not decided on choice per se but on the government's rights to interfere with that choice. it guarantees that a person can not be prevented from having an abortion but subsequent decisions have established that it is not an open ended matter- the states can have some say on when and how that abortion is performed.

[DuncanONeil]

Ken Klukowski
Mr. Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network

But just because Mr Hatch has his name on it it must be wrong! Even a ruling from a Judge is little more than an opinion piece by your claim!


It's an opinion piece by a republican senator.

[DuncanONeil]

Furthermore, other legal experts have argued that the penalty for not buying insurance is in fact a tax and spend measure, much like a tax benefit for having minor dependents. Again, the bill doesn't legally require Americans to purchase healthcare, it requires them to pay a penalty if they don't, so the entire attempt to connect United States v Lopez (1995) is incorrect.
Legal experts? The issue is buy a health insurance policy we approve, or pay the Government to cover you, can in no way be considered a tax!


The "cash for cloture" argument is not something that will stand up in court either, the lack of a case establishing precedent and a long history of similar bills is quite telling.
A bribe is a bribe. A long history of bribes will not nale it legal!


The benefits markets could potentially be problematic, but a case could be made its akin to financial markets.
The benefits "markets" are not permitted by law to enter into the arena controlled by the Federal Government!


In fact the federal reserve act of 1913 also parallels the health care bill:

Congress decided in the Federal Reserve Act that all nationally chartered banks were required to become members of the Federal Reserve System. It requires them to purchase specified non-transferable stock in their regional Federal reserve bank and to set aside a stipulated amount of non-interest bearing reserves with their respective reserve bank (since 1980 all depository institutions have been required to set aside reserves with the Federal Reserve and be entitled to certain Federal Reserve services - Sections 2 and 19). State chartered banks have the option of becoming members of the Federal Reserve System and to thus be supervised, in part, by the Federal Reserve (Section 9). Member banks are entitled to have access to discounted loans at the discount window in their respective reserve bank, to a 6% annual dividend in their Federal reserve stock and to other services (Sections 13 and 7). The Act also permits Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government (Section 15).[8]

There is a case of requiring banks (corporations are individuals under US law) to purchase something. There are also arguments that the Federal Reserve act would be unconstitutional under the same standards.
Wrong again! By your own words the banks were national in nature!

[DuncanONeil]

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!


I'm a registered Democrat and have always believed in the system up to this point. I could care less that it is an opinion piece. It brings facts to light. I've read opinion pieces by Democrats also, and STILL I am leaning the opposite way...mostly because of the controversial nature of our current administration.

I AM NOT AGAINST a healthcare system...what I am against is the slight of hand, sneak in the night way the Democrats are going about trying to get it passed and the clauses they insist upon inserting into it. WHY does it HAVE to force you to buy health insurance? Why can't it be an elective?

As to the statement that by my arguments "the FBI and the CIA are unconstitutional" I do not feel that way at all. For one thing, they were formed to protect the US and enforce Federal laws. I have absolutely nothing against that.

So by your argument, it ISN'T unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you MUST purchase a 13" black and white television ONLY or you will pay a penalty? Or maybe you MUST purchase a hybrid vehicle or pay a penalty? How about if you are only allowed to have one child per household. Would that be ok?

[DuncanONeil]

The thing I do NOT like about this health care bill is that there are so many rumors, questions, ect. I really do not know anything about this bill, seems the Politicians are more intersted in manipulating this potential gold mine.
Well the administration tells you that you will be abloe to keep your current provider if you are happy with them. The bill say that such providers in existence prior to day one of the bill are grandfathered, for a period of FIVE years. At such time they must be part of the "Exchange" Providers in the Exchange will be told what they can provide their customers, and how much they can charge by the Government. In order to be part of the Exchange a provider must be under contract to the Government. Under these provisions you tell me who is running health insurance, or who the providers are working for?
There is a provision in the bill to "increase the time between pregnancies". I ask you how can that be accomplished? And what will happen if someone does not comply with the provisions of the regulations? The so called "death panels", there is no language providing for such a panel, but everyone must have a document on file that essentially tells doctors when they can stop trying to save your life. There is a panel spelled out in the bill that will essential be the governing body for the regulations that come from the bill. The great majority of the panel is appointed by Congress and the President. Only one doctor is required to be on the panel.
And I have not read every page of the bill!

[DuncanONeil]

The issue at hand is not health care, but helath insurance. The all inclusive health insurance is one of the major contributers to the high cost of health care.
Were we the people still responsible for choosing and paying for a portion of our health care prices would not be so high.
Case in point Lasik surgery is not covered in most plans yet since inception the price of such surgery has dropped. It is a completely consumer driven product. As such has improved its equipment and lowered its cost at a quick pace.
High deductible with medical savings accounts would be a good start, tort reform, interstate competition. But the Dems don;t like these ideas as there is a huge measure of personal responsibility inherent in them.


Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[DuncanONeil]

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun ;))


Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

[steelish]

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

I know, I know...I thought of it even as I wrote that, but a REAL scientist writes the facts. I no longer consider those people REAL scientists.

Unfortunately, they have now given science a bad name. I'm hoping (as with most things) the bad apples there do not spoil the bushel.

[steelish]

Or purchase the brand new Tahoe produced by Amish motors!

I hear it's one horse-power! (but requires more frequent maintenance)

[steelish]

A government large enough to give you everything you need is a government large enough to take everything you have.

former President Gerald Ford

I heard that today and it is so true and perfect to this situation. We are going to slowly empower our government and this health care bill lays down the foundation by which they will eventually have that power over us.

[SadisticNature]

The lowest medical costs occur in countries with single-payer government run systems. These countries also score among the highest in the world for quality of care.

The US system is the most expensive in the world. The problem is the private insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid are run with a 2-3% administrative cost (including salaries) whereas the typical insurance company has administrative costs around 40%. This is before you even look at the amount of profit the companies take out of the system (typically massive as well). The problem is even the small to medium insurance companies end up with a board of directors and a not insignificant executive board either. Those salaries have a huge impact on insurance cost. All said and done about half of what you pay for insurance actually covers the cost of the insurance plan, and most deals with profit and the bloated administration that medicare and medicaid prove is not needed.

In addition the current system has insurance costs rising faster than health costs as companies attempt to pad the bottom line.

[steelish]

The lowest medical costs occur in countries with single-payer government run systems. These countries also score among the highest in the world for quality of care.

Yeah, sure. Which is why, I suppose, my dual citizenship (Canada and US) aunt and uncle are appalled that we are contemplating a National Health Care system. They claim that the Canada system is great for minor health care problems, but for the more serious stuff, they rely on the private health care that the US provides, stating that it has much higher quality health care.

[DuncanONeil]

I hear it's one horse-power! (but requires more frequent maintenance)

I suppose! If you want to consider fueling and washing as maintenance.

[DuncanONeil]

A government large enough to give you everything you need is a government large enough to take everything you have.

former President Gerald Ford

I heard that today and it is so true and perfect to this situation. We are going to slowly empower our government and this health care bill lays down the foundation by which they will eventually have that power over us.

Slowly?!?!

[DuncanONeil]

The lowest medical costs occur in countries with single-payer government run systems. These countries also score among the highest in the world for quality of care.

Define quality? When time is a component of quality you can not rate these Government runs systems as high quality. Were these plans so effective there would be no reports from these countries of the poor care and other quality issues.
Also you are confusing costs with payment. For example a procedure that costs $3,000 does not have its costs reduced because Medicare pays only $1,000!


The US system is the most expensive in the world. The problem is the private insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid are run with a 2-3% administrative cost (including salaries) whereas the typical insurance company has administrative costs around 40%.

To some extent you are correct. But that is not the only component. There are requirements in place, from the Government, that raise their costs. Artificial restriction on the area provider can seek clients, for one. Another issue is the customer not paying anything, that leads to "who cares the cost I don't have to pay". That is a big fault in all pervasive insurance. In the past I at least got a copy of the bill that went to insurance, now I see nothing. Comparison of administrative cost between Medicare programs and commercial programs is also an unfair comparison as that do not follow the same rules. Medicare does not REQUIRE a profit. Medicare gets to decide, on its own, how much it will pay. The medical provider is prohibited from asking the patient for the difference.
"Administrative costs account for 25 percent of health care spending, but little is known about the portion attributable to billing and insurance-related (BIR) functions. We estimated BIR for hospital and physician care in California. Data for physician practices came from a mail survey and interviews; for hospitals, from regulatory reporting; and for private insurers, from a consulting company. Private insurers spend 9.9 percent of revenue on administration and 8 percent on BIR. Physician offices spend 27 percent and 14 percent, and hospitals, 21 percent and 7–11 percent, respectively. Overall, BIR represents 20–22 percent of privately insured spending in California acute care settings. Single-payer analysts Steffie Woolhandler, David Himmelstein, and their colleagues have argued that moving to a Canadian-style system would reduce U.S. administrative costs by 10–15 percent of total health spending." That means instead of 20% it would be 18%, big savings!


This is before you even look at the amount of profit the companies take out of the system (typically massive as well).

Define massive? The insurance provider with the greatest amount of profit is only at 8%


The problem is even the small to medium insurance companies end up with a board of directors and a not insignificant executive board either. Those salaries have a huge impact on insurance cost.

How do you propose that these companies run? As a point of interest Boards of Directors often are some of the least paid persons in the company.

All said and done about half of what you pay for insurance actually covers the cost of the insurance plan, and most deals with profit and the bloated administration that medicare and medicaid prove is not needed.

Again a comparison of private company with a organization that does not have the same rules and restrictions. They are not comparable! How much of the costs of running the insurance company is driven by the Government rules that they are forced to follow.


In addition the current system has insurance costs rising faster than health costs as companies attempt to pad the bottom line.

You really think the only reason the prices are going up is to increase the profit earned? That is ridiculous! Though you would likely not believe it you would likely be surprised to lean which companies have the highest profit rates.

[DuncanONeil]

Oh Yeah I forgot about the survival rates that are greater in US medical treatment than under "Single Payer".


The lowest medical costs occur in countries with single-payer government run systems. These countries also score among the highest in the world for quality of care.

The US system is the most expensive in the world. The problem is the private insurance companies. Medicare and Medicaid are run with a 2-3% administrative cost (including salaries) whereas the typical insurance company has administrative costs around 40%. This is before you even look at the amount of profit the companies take out of the system (typically massive as well). The problem is even the small to medium insurance companies end up with a board of directors and a not insignificant executive board either. Those salaries have a huge impact on insurance cost. All said and done about half of what you pay for insurance actually covers the cost of the insurance plan, and most deals with profit and the bloated administration that medicare and medicaid prove is not needed.

In addition the current system has insurance costs rising faster than health costs as companies attempt to pad the bottom line.

[DuncanONeil]

Yeah, sure. Which is why, I suppose, my dual citizenship (Canada and US) aunt and uncle are appalled that we are contemplating a National Health Care system. They claim that the Canada system is great for minor health care problems, but for the more serious stuff, they rely on the private health care that the US provides, stating that it has much higher quality health care.

Tantricsoul has me confused!? Thanks you for what you say and thanks Sadistic for what they say!?

[steelish]

Slowly?!?!

lol. Well, it has been happening since before I was born. It's just been gaining speed lately.

[steelish]

Tantricsoul has me confused!? Thanks you for what you say and thanks Sadistic for what they say!?

I think as the moderator (and correct me if I'm wrong on this TantricSoul) is that he is thanking each poster for attempting to educate the opposing viewpoints without using flaming comments.

[steelish]

Yeah, sure. Which is why, I suppose, my dual citizenship (Canada and US) aunt and uncle are appalled that we are contemplating a National Health Care system. They claim that the Canada system is great for minor health care problems, but for the more serious stuff, they rely on the private health care that the US provides, stating that it has much higher quality health care.

I forgot to add that they also commented that our health care system is timely, in that if something needs to be looked at/tested/etc., it's done much quicker here than in Canada. (Their words, not mine)

[TantricSoul]

Thank you steelish for addressing Duncans comment.

The reason I thank most every post in this section is ... I just want to have an astronomical "thanks" count for my statistics (see I'm trying to cultivate a "sense of gratitude" in my life.)

Actually I do this for several reasons, as steelish suggested above, one of them is to thank posters for participating in threads and contributing different views without resorting to attacks.

Another reason I'll admit to is that it helps me to keep track of which posts I have read in a particular thread previously.

And as shown by Duncans post, to keep you all guessing as to what viewpoint I may have on a particular issue, I wouldn't want any accusations of unfair moderation based upon perception of my beliefs around the issues discussed.

Respectfully,
TS

[SadisticNature]

You really think the only reason the prices are going up is to increase the profit earned? That is ridiculous! Though you would likely not believe it you would likely be surprised to lean which companies have the highest profit rates.

I actually said "The costs are rising faster than the health care costs." This in itself says that health care costs are rising, but costs to the end user are rising. Your claim that I am saying profits are the only reason is outright wrong. It's not even my claim of the main cause of problems, administrative overhead.

However, even using your source for the numbers we have 43% of revenue in administrative overhead and 8% of revenue in profit so the private system is taking up half the money used.

As for your claims of $3000 cost on a $1000 procedure these are wrong as well. What typically happens in the public system is something along the lines of $1200 to $1500 on a $1000 procedure which actually makes money when the administrative overhead is 3% instead of 43%. What happens in the private system is the insurance companies to treat a $1000 procedure as a $2000 one for the purpose of assessing risk as they need that 2 to 1 mark-up to get profits with their huge administrative overhead.

As for wait times, its an issue in a public system, but they are being worked on and are far lower than they were a few years ago. Most procedures have good times now. Also the implication that the US does better on all big issues is outright wrong. The US system if you have money to pay for it does better on some types of cancer, but is near the bottom on all emergency services. Your system does terribly for heart attacks, car accidents and pretty much everything else that requires a quick efficient response. Inability to take people to the fastest reachable hospital causes huge problems, no doubt explaining the fact that the US has one of the highest rates of people dying while on the way to the emergency room.

[steelish]

Your system does terribly for heart attacks, car accidents and pretty much everything else that requires a quick efficient response. Inability to take people to the fastest reachable hospital causes huge problems, no doubt explaining the fact that the US has one of the highest rates of people dying while on the way to the emergency room.

Wow. Not sure where this tidbit of information comes from, but it's terribly incorrect. Ambulances respond very quickly to accident scenes and to other emergencies. The national average response time for an ambulance is 10 minutes. It's usually even quicker than that and they do not check to see if you have insurance when they transport you. They simply take you to the NEAREST hospital and then you are stabilized. ONLY AT THAT TIME does your insurance information get checked for coverage. If your insurance company requires you to attend a different hospital, they transport you AFTER it is safe to do so.

[steelish]

They simply take you to the NEAREST hospital and then you are stabilized.

Sorry, I should have said, "They simply take you to the NEAREST hospital WHILE they stabilize you.

[DuncanONeil]

I forgot to add that they also commented that our health care system is timely, in that if something needs to be looked at/tested/etc., it's done much quicker here than in Canada. (Their words, not mine)


I have heard the same thing from Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen!

[DuncanONeil]

As for your claims of $3000 cost on a $1000 procedure these are wrong as well.

Sorry to disabuse you. But the numbers came from a doctor and a recipient of the procedure. The recipient, without using insurance paid $3,000 for the procedure, for which Medicare pays only $1,000.

What typically happens in the public system is something along the lines of $1200 to $1500 on a $1000 procedure which actually makes money when the administrative overhead is 3% instead of 43%. What happens in the private system is the insurance companies to treat a $1000 procedure as a $2000 one for the purpose of assessing risk as they need that 2 to 1 mark-up to get profits with their huge administrative overhead.

What everyone refuses to acknowledge is that a large part of said overhead is costs that arise as a result of Government leveled requirements. It is estimated that, in total, the cost of everything in this country is 30% due to Government taxes and regulation.


As for wait times, its an issue in a public system, but they are being worked on and are far lower than they were a few years ago. Most procedures have good times now. Also the implication that the US does better on all big issues is outright wrong. The US system if you have money to pay for it does better on some types of cancer, but is near the bottom on all emergency services. Your system does terribly for heart attacks, car accidents and pretty much everything else that requires a quick efficient response. Inability to take people to the fastest reachable hospital causes huge problems, no doubt explaining the fact that the US has one of the highest rates of people dying while on the way to the emergency room.

That is not an issue of health care but an issue of the preferred provider system. That is to say the insurance provider and who accepts them is the driving factor. Hence the reason I assert that the all pervasive cover everything insurance is a detriment to the price of health care.

[DuncanONeil]

Your system does terribly for heart attacks, car accidents and pretty much everything else that requires a quick efficient response.


The world wide death rate from heart attack is a whopping .2%. So based on what you claim the US should do much worse than this. The comparable figure for the US is a staggering .17%!

[SadisticNature]

Obviously if you include everywhere with bad data your numbers are wrong.

As for Mark Steyn, he has a long journalistic history of bad sources, so I have trouble accepting something he says. His numbers tend to be wrong.

Again, if Medicare is paying $1000 for a $3000 procedure the ratio of costs of administration to costs of treatment would go up! Basically, administrative costs are the non-procedure costs, if your total costs go down by reducing procedure costs the administrative costs would go up, so if they are paying far too little on procedures administrative costs should be a higher % but they are 3%. Your example basically proves my case.

The .2% vs .17% includes a lot of countries with pretty atrocious health care. I think a country that has the worlds largest economy and spends triple what anyone else does on healthcare should be doing far better than a .03% improvement! I'd be happy to take a look at your data if you provide a link.

Here are some other statistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate ->
US 8.38 does worse than Canada's 7.74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality_rate ->
Infant Mortality by state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate ->
Infant Mortality by Country

Canada does much better than the US, the only state in the entire US with a number better than Canada's national average is Utah.

[SadisticNature]

I thought you were comparing what Canada's public system is doing, I'm not surprised the current US system is messed up.

As for $3000 cost to user vs Medicare pays $1000, I'd like to see actual data on what the procedure costs, compared to what the doctor is deciding to charge for it. This could easily be an example of price inflation that is typical when people's costs are covered by private insurance.

[Lion]

I have heard the same thing from Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen!

Here's another Canadian citizen who is happy with his healthcare system. Who has seen a family relative admitted almost immediately when something seemed wrong, and was monitored all night, and then admitted when the doctors were concerned.

And once it was all over, we walked out of the lobby, the only expense was the parking, our concern was to move on, not to look back.


I don't know what your point was by saying that there is an upset Canadian regarding the healthcare system, but I can tell you that I've met a lot of Canadians, a lot who are happy, and a few, understandably, that are annoyed with problems that plague our system.

It works for us, we don't have a huge military budget, that is proportionatly about 8 times larger then ours, we care about different things.


There has been such a huge noise about public healthcare recently, and it would be nice for the people so opposed to it to give some sort of solution to the problem of so many uninsured, rather then talk about how the government is turning some sort of communist regime. Public healthcare might not work for US, but now that the debate is on the table, the only thing I've heard from the right is why it can't be done, and nothing else.

What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?


Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

[steelish]

There has been such a huge noise about public healthcare recently, and it would be nice for the people so opposed to it to give some sort of solution to the problem of so many uninsured, rather then talk about how the government is turning some sort of communist regime. Public healthcare might not work for US, but now that the debate is on the table, the only thing I've heard from the right is why it can't be done, and nothing else.

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.


What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?

You make it sound as if you believe America has the highest rate of deaths from cancer, heart disease, or other sicknesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.



Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?

I know what you will say. It's for their own good. It's for the good of others because if they had health insurance, they would get care when needed, etc. However, how is that any different than forcing someone to stop smoking? How about if you stood behind someone who was overweight and forced them to run on the treadmill and monitored their eating? That would be well and good if someone WANTED that done to them, but if they didn't, it would be akin to slavery.

[MMI]

From the BBC: The government in Finland has become the first in the world to say it intends to phase out smoking completely.

Anti-tobacco laws are being tightened in what anti-smoking campaigners have called a war on the cigarette industry.

Paul Henley reports from Helsinki: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8458347.stm

[MMI]

Scenario 1: Mr Blobbo and I belong to a state run healthcasre system. We both pay our compulsory contributions. Mr Blobbo has a heart attack. The healthcare system treats him while his contributions and mine go towards defraying the cost.

Scenario 2. Mr Blobbo and I live in a country with no compulsory healthcare provision. Blobbo chooses to have expensive health insurance because he knows he runs a high risk of heart disease. I, being more confident and apparently more healthy, exercise my choice not to make any provision. One day, while out jogging, I am hit by a truck and am badly injured. Not only do I need immedate surgery requirning shattered bones to be pinned, blood transfusions and a long period of recouperation, but I must pay visits to hospital for the rest of my life for checkups and painkilling injections. I've got no money, so who pays?

Wonder how Mr Blobbo feels about that.

[steelish]

Sorry MMI, I'll still go with scenario #2.

I have my beliefs and my values, and I won't change on that. I foresee an America in which the government tries to control every aspect of our lives, because they will be "responsible" for our healthcare. Things might not have gone like that in your wherever you live, but in the U.S., with the corruption we have and the politicians making statements like; "We know what is best for them. They don't know what they want." Things will get really bad, very quickly. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand...in my opinion.

[MMI]

I don't believe US politicians are any more corrupt than those of any other Western country, and neither should you.

I'm left wondering whether it's worse to have my head in the sand (in your opinion) or to suffer from paranoid distrust of the people you put in power by virtue of a democratic system you cleave to (in my opinion).

I belong to the first category of people because I consider that we have sufficient checks and balances in the UK to make sure that the "very bad" situation you dread is almost certain never to come about, and that's in a class-ridden country with an aristocracy which still controls the nation through its economy, regardless of what Parliament thinks, and where corruption is sanitised through the "Old Boy Network". If we have sufficient checks, then so have you.

[steelish]

I belong to the first category of people because I consider that we have sufficient checks and balances in the UK to make sure that the "very bad" situation you dread is almost certain never to come about, and that's in a class-ridden country with an aristocracy which still controls the nation through its economy, regardless of what Parliament thinks, and where corruption is sanitised through the "Old Boy Network". If we have sufficient checks, then so have you.

But we DON'T have sufficient checks. Our Congress right now is not a balanced mix, it is heavily left wing. We need a equal number of left and right to maintain a balance.

[Thorne]

But we DON'T have sufficient checks. Our Congress right now is not a balanced mix, it is heavily left wing. We need a equal number of left and right to maintain a balance.

The constitutional checks and balances are between segments of the government, not between political affiliations. I would say, though, that the right didn't have any concerns about maintaining balance when the Congress was heavily right wing. Let's face it. Neither side will be happy if the other side has control. What frightens me is when, like now, the Congress and the President are from the same side. That tends to corrupt one of the constitutional balances.

[steelish]

Ah, but there is very much a balance between political affiliations.

Our government was founded on the idea of People's Law and our founders struggled hard to find the balanced center. In fact, the wings on the eagle which is the seal of the United States of America symbolizes the balance. The left wing refers to the Problem-Solving Wing (the Democrats) while the right wing refers to the Conservation Wing (the Republicans).

Those who represent the left wing of the eagle (i.e., the Democrats) are sensitive and compassionate to the unfulfilled needs of the people. They dream of elaborate plans to solve these problems.

Those who represent the right wing...or the Republicans, have the responsibility of conserving the nation's resources and the people's freedom. Its function is to analyze the programs of the left wing with two questions; First, can we afford it? Second, what will it do to the rights of the people?

So you see, political affiliations have a lot to do with the balance of our nation.

[DuncanONeil]

The patient in question, who paid cash not insurance, reported the charge for the procedure was $3,000. A doctor conversing with the patient reported that said procedure is reimbursed by Medicare at $1,000. Actually the doctor person inferred $3,000 based on a cash patient, confirmed by the patient, and then followed up with the Medicare payment.

Again in this case there was no insurance involved!


I thought you were comparing what Canada's public system is doing, I'm not surprised the current US system is messed up.

As for $3000 cost to user vs Medicare pays $1000, I'd like to see actual data on what the procedure costs, compared to what the doctor is deciding to charge for it. This could easily be an example of price inflation that is typical when people's costs are covered by private insurance.

[DuncanONeil]

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.
You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?

I can see that you understand the fallacy here. Many of the uninsured CHOOSE to not have insurance. A significant portion do not need insurance. Even the plans Congress is demanding only solve the insurance problem for less than half the people THEY say are uninsured.

Why does everyone that supports this mess of a plan think this is the only way to change the status quo? Why is it that these same people have not heard of the other options?

[DuncanONeil]

The constitutional checks and balances are between segments of the government, not between political affiliations. I would say, though, that the right didn't have any concerns about maintaining balance when the Congress was heavily right wing. Let's face it. Neither side will be happy if the other side has control. What frightens me is when, like now, the Congress and the President are from the same side. That tends to corrupt one of the constitutional balances.

But that is exactly what was said! The Executive is leftist, the Legislative is leftist, and the Judicial has been leftist for decades.
So where are the checks and balances?

[Lion]

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.


That I appreciate, good idea, one that people can build on.




What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?




You make it sound as if you believe America has the highest rate of deaths from cancer, heart disease, or other sicknesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.


I don't infer anything, what I say is what I mean. I never said anything about highest death rates among the world, I said that terrorism, including the 3000+ who died in 01, does not kill as many people compared to sickness. Yet hundreds of billions are spent on wars, and a fraction of that is spent on research, or preventative care or any other sort of healthcare solution.

Next time, please read what I've said carefully. I tried sarcasm in one of these threads and found it quite offensive and I make every attempt not to use it again, and stay as close to facts.



You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?


Yes, I said by choice. Please read on....


Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

So to clarify (since it seems you missed the point of that particular sentence) is that there are 11 million people there, that is if the conservative guess is correct. I ignored the other 19 million when I asked my question "Do they deserve help even?" It's not a loaded question





I know what you will say. It's for their own good. It's for the good of others because if they had health insurance, they would get care when needed, etc. However, how is that any different than forcing someone to stop smoking? How about if you stood behind someone who was overweight and forced them to run on the treadmill and monitored their eating? That would be well and good if someone WANTED that done to them, but if they didn't, it would be akin to slavery.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I like healthcare for everyone, but I'm not as stupid to believe that I am correct in believing that my opinion is what is best for a country not my own. I can be wrong, and the only way I can either re-enforce or alter my opinion is by challenging the other side's points.

I think health coverage for all is like public education for all. Your analogy with the overweight person, or the slavery comparison is your opinion, and I can respectfully disagree. So the point of my previous post: What should you do about those people (11 million by conservative estimates) who don't have health insurance because they simply can not? Your first point answered that question nicely, are you willing to pay a little more tax, or cut military or other spending to fund that? Would it work with all Americans?


By the way, slavery was a lot worse then paying some extra taxes. I've seen people in Pakistan live under bonded labour, and the situation of their lives was the saddest thing I have ever seen. I can tell you right now, as a taxpayer who pays into the government run healthcare system, there is simply no comparison.

[DuncanONeil]

"I don't infer anything, what I say is what I mean. I never said anything about highest death rates among the world, I said that terrorism, including the 3000+ who died in 01, does not kill as many people compared to sickness. Yet hundreds of billions are spent on wars, and a fraction of that is spent on research, or preventative care or any other sort of healthcare solution."

I got booted in mid comment so some of it is lost.
The "(t)otal expenditures for U.S. medical research have doubled in the past 10 years to almost $95 billion annually. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30983.php) The data indicates that current expenditures have likely topped 150 billion. Now you can still call that a fraction of, but it is not an insignificant expenditure.A brakedown of ratios was found; "The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest comes from various public and private sources. Federal support of medical research has also grown substantially: between 1986 and 1995 real federal expenditures on medical research increased by 46 percent, reaching $13.4 billion annually.1 This is more than one fifth of federal outlays on research and development." Since this was in 99 the numbers have to be brought up do date but ratios are likely the same.

[DuncanONeil]

"I think health coverage for all is like public education for all."

Public education for all is not working either The costs keep going up and the product continues to fail. In my school district even the best school can barely manage to graduate 50 percent of a class! And that is with the property tax collecting nearly one billion dollars. Plus contributions from the state and the Feds. all for less than 86,000 students!

[steelish]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I like healthcare for everyone, but I'm not as stupid to believe that I am correct in believing that my opinion is what is best for a country not my own. I can be wrong, and the only way I can either re-enforce or alter my opinion is by challenging the other side's points.

I think health coverage for all is like public education for all. Your analogy with the overweight person, or the slavery comparison is your opinion, and I can respectfully disagree. So the point of my previous post: What should you do about those people (11 million by conservative estimates) who don't have health insurance because they simply can not? Your first point answered that question nicely, are you willing to pay a little more tax, or cut military or other spending to fund that? Would it work with all Americans?

I'm sorry for doing that, and yes, I do believe it would work with all Americans. I think they would be more open to that (right now over 65!% of Americans are against the health care bill).

[steelish]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it. (http://www.vancouversun.com/health/premier+heart+surgery+sparks+debate/2516321/story.html)

From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???

The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.

[Thorne]

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???
Sounds like pretty specialized surgery to me. Maybe they don't have the skills in Canada. Perhaps the best in the field is in the US. That doesn't mean it can't be done in Canada, but if you can afford the best, why not?


The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.
Again, a lot depends on the type of care they're looking for. Personally, if I needed something that the US couldn't provide, and I could afford to go somewhere else to get that care, I'd do it. Wouldn't you? This says nothing about the relative merits of the health care systems of either nation as a whole, only on individual cases. Who knows? Maybe they don't allow homeopathic woo-medicine in Canada.

[Lion]

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?




It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again




From the article:

All but very rare and specialized heart surgery that is done in the United States is also available in Canada, a Toronto cardiac surgeon said.

The one significant exception would be surgery to the thoracic aorta, the giant blood vessel that carries blood that's pumped out of the heart to other organs. If a person develops a swelling or aneurysm, an abnormal bulging, in the thoracic aorta, and needs surgery to open the chest cavity, "that's a very extensive operation," Feindel said.

So what. They don't have the skills/equipment/training, etc. in Canada???



Last I heard, if the government of Ontario cannot find a treatment for you in the province, they will cover whatever expenses you would have receiving treatment elsewhere.

Check out Sick Kids hospital, they are renowned for dealing with extremely rare conditions, many of their patients are brought in from around the world, including US. Should Canada spend money on dealing with all the rarest cases in the world? I would definitely hope not. I'd love to see research done on a lot of rare disease, but one country cannot handle it by itself, in those situations, we pay to send our residents to get treatment abroad.






The Fraser Institute estimated that 41,000 Canadians sought health care services in the U.S. in 2009.

Wow. That's a lot of people to PAY for health care when they can get it for free without the added expense of traveling.


Ratio between the Canadian and American population is roughly 1 to 10. Take 41,000 Canadians, multiply it by 10. You get 410 000 people. Assume that twice the number of people would go if they had the means to, hell, make it three times. You have roughly 1.2 million people that find the current public healthcare system less then satisfactory for their needs

I still like 1.2 million more then 11-30 million people who have no way of getting expensive treatment when the time comes for it. Just sayin'





I still don't get your point here. And that's the whole problem with this whole debate (Not on this forum only, but everywhere). All the naysayers do is point out why it will fail, and provide nothing to fix this issue. Many people are suffering because of healthcare costs, a friend of a friend's family went backrupt paying his medical bills, and this isn't a rare story.

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

[steelish]

I'd like to see more points on a different system you think would be better, rather then just say it won't work. Something constructive

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

[steelish]

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

So sorry. He's a provincial premier

[Thorne]

How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?
I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

[steelish]

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

Who determines guilt or innocence?

[Thorne]

Who determines guilt or innocence?

The courts. Either a judge or a jury. Which means going through the whole legal process to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, which doesn't save anything.

[Lion]

I presented another idea, one which you said was a "good idea". Here's yet another one...how about allowing the insurance companies to compete across all 50 states? How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

[Lion]

Btw, how much do you suppose health care costs would go down by eliminating frivilous law suits, and how exactly, like Thorne said, would you go about getting rid of them?

[steelish]

The courts. Either a judge or a jury. Which means going through the whole legal process to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, which doesn't save anything.

It does if the person who brought the suit to begin with ends up paying out of pocket for the entire debacle. It would act as a deterrent.

[steelish]

And what have you done to propogate this idea? Talk to your congressman/woman, start a facebook group, researched the idea in depth?

A lot of people are depending for something to finally happen. Tell the Tea Party people find solutions, and fight for them, rather then just fight an administration since it's not a Republican government.

I mean, where was the tea party when the patriot act came along? (Okay, now I'm getting off topic)

I have called my congressman (numerous times), I am a member of a tea party. I have proposed these solutions...as have others.

And it's not about parties, it's about principles.

[Thorne]

It does if the person who brought the suit to begin with ends up paying out of pocket for the entire debacle. It would act as a deterrent.
It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

[steelish]

It would be more likely to deter those whose claims are real, but who are worried about even the possibility of losing. In some cases, too, it's the attorney who convinces the client to file a suit, especially if he can collect a fee regardless of the outcome.

However, I think there should be some way to have the person being sued compensated for their costs if they win the case. Something along the lines of having the plaintiff's attorney, not the plaintiff himself, pay all court costs and defendants costs, without collecting any fees from the plaintiff. That might tend to insure that only suits with real merit are brought to trial. A lot of bugs in there, though. I don't have a better answer, sadly.

Or maybe a combination of both? Plaintiff pays a fee (to the court system) and the prosecuting attorney pays a much larger compensatory fee? There definitely has to be some sort of reform on this because it's why the doctors and hospitals have such ridiculously large charges. Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.

At any rate, those whose claims are real should have real evidence to back it up. (such as the "wrong foot was removed" or "they left an instrument behind in my intestines and had to go back in after the fact and retrieve it")

[Thorne]

Their malpractice insurance rates drive up prices.
Don't forget the fact that doctors feel the need, because of those frivolous lawsuits, to run every test they can think of for someone who complains of unlocalized stomach pains, for example, just to cover themselves for when the patient sues them for not supplying them with morphine.

[steelish]

Don't forget the fact that doctors feel the need, because of those frivolous lawsuits, to run every test they can think of for someone who complains of unlocalized stomach pains, for example, just to cover themselves for when the patient sues them for not supplying them with morphine.

I realize that...can you blame them? We've allowed too many unjustified lawsuits, with completely ridiculous reasoning. And not just medical.

How about the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee in her lap. Her claim that there should have been a written warning on the cup, or that the window attendant should have verbally warned her is ludicrous. Yet she won the case. How about the woman who sued Reynolds Tobacco Company over her husband dying of lung cancer? Excuse me???? There are warnings printed right on the side of the carton! Stupidity abounds.

[Thorne]

I realize that...can you blame them? We've allowed too many unjustified lawsuits, with completely ridiculous reasoning. And not just medical.

How about the woman who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee in her lap. Her claim that there should have been a written warning on the cup, or that the window attendant should have verbally warned her is ludicrous. Yet she won the case. How about the woman who sued Reynolds Tobacco Company over her husband dying of lung cancer? Excuse me???? There are warnings printed right on the side of the carton! Stupidity abounds.

No, I don't blame them at all. It's the legal system which is at fault here.

One thing, though, about the woman at McDonalds. IIRC, McD's had had many complaints about their coffee being too hot, and possibly some warnings from consumer groups. I don't remember the details, but the case wasn't as simple as it sounds. I still think the woman was paid for her own clumsiness and stupidity, but as they say, the devil's in the details.

[denuseri]

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures. Take the money grubbing sideliner types who have made the thing the way it is today purely out of greed out of the picture entirely.

Tort reform, is not quite as simple but still doable as well.

Put one regulating authority in charge of it and do away with all the others and do not let it be run by the doctors or the insurance assholes or drug companies. But by a fiscally responsible third party with full knowledge of medical procedures.

Oh wait, some greedy CEO's will loose out then, I guess we can't have that now can we.

[steelish]

You know why there's no tort reform???

Almost every single politician in office is a former lawyer. Do you think they really want to damage the industry that they climbed the political ladder with?

[Thorne]

I know how to solve the insurance issue.....get rid of insurance all together. Make medicine free accross the board for life saving procedures.
Sounds great. While we're at it, why don't we make food free as well. And don't forget auto repairs. They cost me a bundle this month. Oh, and let's save the truly vain money as well and include plastic surgery and breast implants in the pile of free things.

Yeah, that should work.

[steelish]

rofl!

She was joking. ;)


Wait, if you're going to include breast implants...

*looks down at chest*

[Thorne]

rofl!

She was joking. ;)


Wait, if you're going to include breast implants...

*looks down at chest*

Of course! And butt jobs, too.

Sorry, denuseri. One of the hazards of written communication. Sometimes my irony meter breaks down.

[SadisticNature]

The McDonald's case regarding the coffee was an excellent example of media sensationalism. The issue was not "the cup did not warn it was hot", this was rather a comedy bit on the case that played well in the media. The issue was the coffee was overboiled and was 20 degrees (C not F) above the temperature it was supposed to be. Thus the person suffered much more severe burns when they spilled their coffee. And they sued for their medical costs. As this wasn't a lawsuit against a doctor it doesn't even effect the cost of malpractice insurance.

The precise ruling was because the coffee was far beyond the expected normal temperature that a reasonable person would expect coffee to be, yet carried no additional warning (either spoken from the attendant, or written on the cup).

Btw, when they serve me cold coffee and I sue them for false advertising (the cup said Caution: Hot!) is that a frivolous lawsuit?

[denuseri]

I wasn't joking at all, I think the main thing that has screwed up our medical system is in fact the insurance and drug companies combined with the lawyers.

And as nice as free food or other non life saving services might be, its not part of the topic persay.

[SadisticNature]

It works in a sizable number of countries.

No one is saying food should be free, the government has no business having any control over your diet.

No one is saying auto repairs should be free, the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what parts go into your car.

Healthcare is different in that:
(I) Public systems are working well elsewhere in the world.
(II) Your current system is problematic and is getting worse. The age at which people begin their work careers keeps getting later, and people are finding themselves unable to get insurance once they are off their parents insurance because at 25 they already have pre-existing conditions. Many of these conditions are environmental (or genetic) and hence outside the control of those afflicted by them. Even if they are managing the condition through proper responsible diet and exercise, its existence makes it impossible for them to get insurance save through getting a job that provides good insurance. These jobs are getting rarer as employers cut costs. Furthermore, with visible medical conditions employers often refuse to hire although they will officially site other reasons.

On the other hand I'm not surprised to see a country/municipality/state that can send firefighters to your house and bill you for it, despite the fact that you didn't want them there, believes in private medicine.

Likewise for a country/municipality/state that sends someone a $28,000 US bill because their house burnt down.

[Saheli]

Why is it, in USA, that if a person is poor, he mustn't have worked hard enough? Why is it that people in USA only "deserve" what they can pay for?

Why is it that the worth of a US citizen can be measured in dollars, but not in generosity or humanity?

No-one chooses to be poor or a burden on society (ok - a few exceptions, but the general assertion holds good), and it is callous in the extreme, to my way of thinking, to allow an unfortunate person to suffer more when is is within my power to help him.

My husband works two jobs; I have one job and go to college full-time...we have two children. We can't afford health insurance and can barely afford the basics: food, electricity, gas, etc. Forget going out to eat (unless it's a birthday or something when sometimes we get money from relatives) or buying something we would like...or going out on a date where *gasp* we might need an extra twenty bucks.

Even so, I am not sure where I stand on this issue. I do not believe anyone is inherently entitled to healthcare. But I know I sure could use it! If my husband paid for health insurance for our family, we would not be able to afford our bills...and we do not have nice things. I mean, we don't have a fancy car or a nice house. We buy the cheapest, best-quality stuff we can and scrape by..it's not like we buy expensive things and then complain about upkeep. For families like mine, it would help tremendously.

We had to put our children on Medicaid, and I'm thinking about applying for food stamps. I would LOVE to get another job. I would LOVE to afford what I need. But I have no extra time to do it! It's either work my job and go to school or quit school and get another job...but if I do that, I have to start paying back all my lovely student loans because obviously, I've had to take those out.

The most frustrating thing is that everyone around us thinks that we are just blowing our money. My mother in law constantly says, "It isn't that you don't make enough money, it's just that you spend too much." Yeah, on bills! There's nothing left after that. Seriously, we have $17 in our bank account right now; it's not like I'm crying poor with a couple hundred in there. Our income is barely more than our expenses.

You may not believe it, but it actually IS possible to be working as hard as you can and still be poor.

I don't know what the answer is: some say health-care reform, others say charity. But you know, those people who think charity is the way to go here's an idea...do some yourself! It has to start somewhere...why wait around for the other guy?

Truly, what I want more than help is a little validation. You know, someone to say every now and then, "Damn you guys are doing the best you can," rather than just assuming that if you live in America you automatically will make a decent living. It's offensive...much moreso than not having insurance.

[MMI]

I think it's incredible that an ordinary family with three incomes still has to struggle to make ends meet, and still feel the need to apply for social benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. It seems to me that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work, just to stop going under.

When I was young, my wife and I had two incomes - both relatively low, but enough to get by on. Had we had to put a significant monthly payment aside to cover our medical needs, we would probably have elected not to do so. We would probably, as a consequence, have had to forego medical treatment, if the need ever arose. We would have made a critical choice for purely economic reasons.

And if we had needed medical treatment, we would have become a burden on society.

However, in the UK, an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income. These deductions entitle that person to receive any medical attention he needs. OK, no-one likes paying taxes, but if it's a choice between paying a health care tax or an insurance premium, where's the difference?

The difference is that you can't opt out, and later become a freeloader.

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

[steelish]

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

It has nothing to do with right-wing/left-wing. I am slightly to the right of center on my views. It has to do with my belief that the health care bill is a trojan horse of sorts.

Progressives have been taking baby steps in changing America for years. Oliver Wendell Holmes (during his time as a Supreme Court Justice) wrote an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia's compulsory sterilization law in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman. Holmes wrote, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... three generations of imbeciles are enough." While his detractors point to this case as an extreme example of his moral relativism, other legal observers argue that this was a consistent extension of his own version of strict utilitarianism, which weighed the morality of policies according to their overall measurable consequences in society and not according to their own normative worth. Needless to say, Holmes was admired by the Progressives of his day.

I've italicized and made bold the text that applies to my viewpoint. He used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing. He was trying to use that case to introduce PERMANENT sterilization. Who is to say that the health care bill won't open the door for Progressives to impose restrictions and/or penalties upon the public? They might not, but chances are very likely that SOMEONE will. The people in power today that are assuring us that this will not happen are not the same people that will be in power when our children and grandchildren are older.

Those who insist that this will not happen and pish-posh the naysayers, can you with 100% CERTAINTY, guarantee that it will not happen? If you can't, why are you taking a chance with the future?

[oww-that-hurt]

an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income.

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway? To quell any naysayers, we don't have high-speed internet, or cell phones, or smoke, or have fancy cars, or go to movies, or any of the other stuff folks think they need. We butcher our own meat, too. The $ just aren't there for over $1,000 per month for insurance. We can cover the $300 if push comes to shove, such as no longer donating 400-600 pounds of food to the food bank each year. I like the idea of health-care tax, based on income. We would have insurance and the food bank would get donations (dropped off 37.4 pounds today).

[Losalt]

Health care isn't a natural resource floating around accessible to everyone -- it's not air, water, whatever. In order for someone to be provided health care, someone else has to do something -- there's a cost involved in that, either the time of the health care provider or money to compensate for that time.

The problem with "universal" health care is that people don't make that connection or understand the implication. It means the police-power of government, the government's unique power of acceptable lethal force, must be used to take from one citizen and give to another -- either by forcing the health-care provider to use his/her time or to take money from someone else to compensate.

I think I'm a generous person. My family gives quite a bit to charity -- more than Joe Biden does, despite the fact that he makes tens of times more than I do. I might donate to someone who needed an operation they couldn't afford or to an organization that provides health care to those who don't have insurance and can't afford it -- but I have a significant objection to the government using its power of lethal force to threaten me with imprisonment or death so they can take money I earned and plan to spend on my family for the benefit of others. That should be my decision.

No.
The need of that force is only required if people don't agree about the government providing for people, that is everyone agreeing on helping each other in a more vide sweeping way then the charities that can only handle fashion problems anyway..
If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.
What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice..
But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

[MMI]

[Holmes] used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing.


Aren't you doing something very similar here?


First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.



You have now!
:woohoo:



Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway?

No clue ... unless he feels that, if everyone does buy insurance, he won't have to fine anybody. I guess that comes down to an economic calculation: which is cheaper, the fine plus any emergency health bills you might have to meet, or the insurance premium.

I think he's taking entirely the wrong approach. There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

[Losalt]

My personal view is that health care should be available to everybody - irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Our Natioanl Health Service in the UK caters for that although, as fetishdj says, "Our NHS is beleagured and underfunded at the moment"

From another personal perspective, if I'd had to pay for the treatment and medications I've received over the last 2 year, I'd have gone up in smoke out of the crematorium chimney a year ago!!

The problem with the national healthcare is that it's funding don't tend to increase at the same rate as both the new possible forms of healthcare (new drugs and treatment methods and so one) arrive and the increase in population size at the same time.. (in the case of nations with diminishing populations it's a labour problem, the workforce increasing in value causing healthcare to cost rate becoming horrible..
Something I think would be sensible in the US is something along the line of the school system in my own country..
Here public schools dominate most of the education but it is legal with private schools, in the sense that they're not allowed to earn money and that they're provided about the same amount of founding as a public school would pr student, they can however cover some additional costs with money from the students (generally payed for by cheap student loans granted by the government).
This system allows some variety in education as people with a different life stance get the chance to run their own schools and so can people that don't believe in the way the public schools try to teach away things and think other ways of teaching away things would be better..
Something like that would probably work as well for the hospitals as for the schools..
Off course all of this require people to actually trust the government, something that the people of the US don't seam to do at the moment.. or am I wrong? ;)

[Losalt]

Hum, I have several pages worth that I'd like to say, but looking at my previous posts and my current time (in this timezone) I think I better head for bed and come back later with more constructive comments..

[Thorne]

[INDENT]There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!
But you aren't forcing your opinions on anyone. If someone here doesn't like your opinions they don't have to read them. After all, it's not like you can shout them down.

And it's not like your right, anyway.:rolleyes:

[steelish]

If people don't agree to the governmental way of doing it it's unlikely that universal healthcare would get enough public support to be accepted as law in the first place.


Therein lies the problem. Over 65% (a majority) of the American citizens are AGAINST the health care bill, yet our government is still moving forward with trying to pass it. They are not listening to their citizens. Even though, in America, the politicians WORK FOR US, they act as if we are not part of the equation.



What could be seen as strange from an european point of view is that the US choose to use more then half it's tax money on an army, instead of on it's own citizens in the form of a welfare state..
But again, that is your choice.

Because that is one of the roles of our government. Providing for it's citizens in the form of a service is NOT the role of our government. Europeans call it a welfare state, most Americans view is as a NANNY state. America was formed on a "can-do" attitude, not a "what can you do for me" attitude. It is not the role of our government to "take care of us" and be providers. When our government concentrated on it's role and allowed the free market to work, we became the strongest, richest nation on earth. But a nanny...oops, sorry, welfare state type of nation (Europe) is your choice to live in.

Think of it this way, if that healthcare bill passes, and Obama cuts spending to NASA, and cuts spending to our self defense, eventually America will no longer be able to run to the rescue during natural disasters and when other nations call for help.



But I know one thing, I'd never want to actually live in your country for long enough to allow my own nations healthcare to stop apply to me, despite enjoying visiting the US..
(our national insurance only apply to a few american hospitals)

Okey dokey!