Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[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.