Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

"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.

"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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

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).

Gee. The Prime Minister of Canada is coming to the states for heart surgery. Why?

Hmmm...his doctor recommended it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

It's not the Prime Minister of Canada, read the article again

---

So sorry. He's a provincial premier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

How about penalizing people who file frivolous law suits?

---

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I like this idea.

Only... who determines what is frivolous?

---

Who determines guilt or innocence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

rofl!

She was joking. ;)


Wait, if you're going to include breast implants...

*looks down at chest*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

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.

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?

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.

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.