cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:42 pm

Watch this short movie. I agree that something needs to be done to address the health insurance issue in the US, but having government handle everything is not the way.



[Edited 2007-03-28 13:43:40]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
melpax
Posts: 1727
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:56 pm

Public hospital elective surgery waiting lists have been a hot political topic here for years. While the public health system here meets the needs of most people, if your surgery is not urgent (knee surgey, non-life threatining conditions, etc) you can be on a waiting list for years, while if you have private health insurance, any surgery you require will be done realtively quickly.
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:01 pm

Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.

Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.

Good overal statment, but I would ammend that while the government isn't Satan, most of the people in it are.

If there could be some meaningful election and corruption reform, great, let the government do it. But until I can trust my lawmakers with the next door neighbor's 14 y/o daughter; the answer is  no 
This space intentionally left blank
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:47 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan. It's Reagan who told it to me.

Did I say anything about the gov't being evil? No. But it's like calling a plumber to install an electrical system.

In this film, it was illustrated how politicians, when put in control of health care, divert funds and effort from normal people and divert them to special interest groups. The victim here lost her bladder simply because she was unlucky enough not to belong to a politically active minority. The minister was more interested in buying votes from the transsexual community than he was in actually providing care to people who really need it.

In a privately funded health system, that would not be such a problem. And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland. The argument seems to be the Status Quo or government care for all, and nothing in between.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Good overal statment, but I would ammend that while the government isn't Satan, most of the people in it are.

You're speaking of the people in the governments as if they were E.T.s
No they are human beings, and they make exactly the same mistakes as everybody does. They are not more dangerous because they are in a governement, except if you promote anarchy.

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem. In fact, more often than not, government causes as many problems as it solves.

A government is not an answer. It's a bunch of people who are here because they are indirectly chosen by the people (in a democracy) to rule the country. If somebody should take a decision about my country, I prefer that it's by people chosen by an election and who will not stay here 30 years, rather than by some lobby.
 
User avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5564
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:07 am

I always hear horror stories about the health care system in Canada. However these stories are always told to me by people that would be effected if we had national health care here in the USA. I have never heard any Canadias complaining too much. What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?
My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:07 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):

Government isn't the great satan, but it's not the answer to every problem.

But the answer to health care problems. There are few spheres were the market doesn't work better or equal to public systems. Health care is one, because of bad risks.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
In this film, it was illustrated how politicians, when put in control of health care, divert funds and effort from normal people and divert them to special interest groups.

That sounds more like a problem of not enough public control and not like a problem of public health care per se. And a public health care system can be bad, too. I'm pretty sure you can also found examples of bad private health care.

pelican
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:14 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland.

You forgot to mention that those "private insurers" are heavy (state) regulated non-profit organisations.

pelican

edit: spelling

[Edited 2007-03-28 17:17:19]
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:37 am

Quoting Pelican (Reply 9):
You forgot to mention that those "private insurers" are heavy (state) regulated non-profit organisations.

Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland. However the products themselves (such as LaMaL, the basic health insurance package) is quite regulated, mainly to ensure a proper minimum standard of coverage.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:51 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
I prefer that it's by people chosen by an election and who will not stay here 30 years, rather than by some lobby.

I think you need to look at the composition of the body. For example the longevity of the US Congress is getting ridiculous. You've got people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE that have made being a representative a career path. People like Ted Kennedy (something like 30+ years in the Senate), Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens and the list goes on and on.

Ditto for the US House.

Fundamentally, the system does not work how it was envisioned. Congress was supposed to be a part time job, where representatives travelled to DC a couple times a year to deal with the matters of state and then went back home and lived under the laws they passed. Now, Congress exempts itself from just about every piece of legislation that it passes.

Anyone who's ever worked on the Hill can testify to the insanely dangerous condition of the underground tunnels that connect the various buildings to one another. They are literally fire death traps waiting to strike. But instead of dealing with the violations that would have OSHA shutting down the place if the building where in the private sector, Congress just exempts itself from those rules.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 8):
But the answer to health care problems. There are few spheres were the market doesn't work better or equal to public systems. Health care is one, because of bad risks.

As the president of a mid-sized enterprise ($150M in annual sales) I've got very mixed feelings about this. One one hand I've seen our health insurance premiums rise about 14% per year for each of the last 8 years. On the other hand I can't reconcile the irrefutable law of economics that any resources that is free is consumed in quantities that are uneconomical. The free-rider problem is something that needs to be addressed.

By the same token, my wife recently had a cancer scare when a mamogram indicated spots of concern. Her treatment options were (1) have it biopsied immediately or (2) wait six months and see if these spots grew. If they grew, they were probably malignant.

We opted for the biopsy. Given its location it had to be an open procedure. It was done in an outpatient manner but at a hospital. In at 8AM out at 5PM. The hospital billed $14,000. The insurance company paid them $2,800. We paid zero. Fortunately the results were negative.

A couple of weeks later, our housekeeper who comes once a week told my wife that her mamogram had the exact same findings. However, she didn't have health insurance nor $14,000 to pay for the biopsy. Therefore she had to wait the six months. If it is cancer, the Medicaid system will cover the treatment, which could involve surgery to remove the breast, chemo and radiation. I talked to physician friend of mine that said that such treatment could easily run $200,000. So here this woman, who works every day, may end up costing the taxpayers $200,000 because as a society we won't pay for her exploratory surgery. That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

I don't think that there are any simple answers to this problem.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:52 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
E.T.s

Where did I say that? Interesting concept though "(S)E.T.; The Satanic Extra Terrestial "

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 6):
They are not more dangerous because they are in a government, except if you promote anarchy.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  Everybody in government is more dangerous because they have more power. It's not a perception it's a fact. Now whether or not they choose to be dangerous is another story. Personally I have seen too much corruption in my lifetime to regard any politician as 'safe' or 'honest'.
This space intentionally left blank
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 12):
Everybody in government is more dangerous because they have more power. It's not a perception it's a fact.

Bloody hell, Ted, you are starting to sound like a conservative!

Someone shoot me - that twice in a couple of days I agree with Ted!  Wink
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:45 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):

Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

I was not precise enough. Those private insurers are not allowed to make any profits with the basic health insurance. They are allowed to make profits with additional insurance products. There are quite a few "Krankenkassen" who work only on non-profit base. So no bull here.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland.

That's bull, indeed.
I didn't know that other Swiss insurances or banks have to insure everybody - the health insurances are not allowed to reject anybody who wants to be insured. And everybody living in Switzerland has to have an insurance. That's what I call heavy regulated. That's far from being a free market.

pelican
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:52 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

That's the best statment I have ever seen you make.. (besides the time you gave me a KO against Kroc)
This space intentionally left blank
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:03 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
And what I find amazing in the US is that nobody I have heard about has advocated a 100% coverage by private insurers, as has been done successfully in Switzerland.

How exactly does that system work? Does the government pay the insurance companies to provide insurance to those who can't afford it?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
skyservice_330
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 6:50 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:12 am

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 7):
What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?

Basically, Canada has a system of universal insurance- the system is publicly funded. Doctors are not employees of the state and the federal government, beyond picking up a huge tab for the cost of the system, plays a very little role. Each province is responsible for their own respective health care systems and the federal government uses its spending power to give the provinces money to support their systems as long as it meets the requirements found within the Canada Health Act, 1984. Canada, to a certain extent, does have a two tier system as private clinics do exist, but there are not that many. Doctors must choose to work within the private system or the public system, they cannot work in both.

The biggest problem in Canada at the moment, I would say, is wait times, although progress is being made to lower them. Wait times are a way for the government to control the costs of the system. If they train more doctors or allow more, for example, foreign trained doctors into the system, then wait times will go down but you will have more doctors within the system and pulling money from it, thus driving up costs. At the end, it is a balancing act. Have enough doctors to keep wait times at a reasonable level, but not enough to drive the costs of the system through the roof to an unmanageable level.

They are finding creative ways to deal with it though. For instance, if I remember correctly, one issue in Ontario relating to wait times was that there wasn't enough anesthesiologist in the system thus causing longer wait times. One way to get around this is to create a new level of specialty nurses with the necessary training to perform the basic anesthesiological(sp?) work required for every-day surgery and this was done in conjunction with universities with nursing programs. The nurses are still supervised by anesthesiologist though so their is no danger to the patient. For instance, in the past they would only have been allowed to have one knee surgery going on at one time because they only had one anesthesiologist available. Now, they can have 3 going on at the same time- in OR's 1, 2, and 3- each one with a specially trained nurse, and the anesthesiologist makes the rounds between the three rooms making sure everything is OK and supervising what the nurse is doing.

Overall, I would say Canadians are generally happy with the system or it wouldn't have the support it has among the populous. Although, some polls are showing that Canadians are beginning to become more receptive to a mixed system or would be willing to pay out of their pocket for certain services. Universal health care, I would say, is a sacred cow in Canada and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon. It is by no means perfect, but we like it.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_canada
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:20 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
That just doesn't seem like a rational decision.

I don't think that there are any simple answers to this problem.

And that's the crux of it - much of our health care system isn't rational, and yet, you can't get four people to agree on a course, let alone the nation.

The method CFalk describes for Switzerland intrigues me, and of all the models I've read about, seems, at least on the surface, the closest to a compromise between our free enterprise model and the Euro/Canadian National model. The part that continues to nag me however, is that as long as it is a for profit enterprise, there will always be a built in pressure to maximize profits and reduce costs. And if there is one thing the HMOs have shown us, the reduction in costs comes from one place, patient care.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:31 am

Hmm, what happened to my post?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
Bull. They are for-profit companies. Helsana for example made 114 million francs profit after tax last year, on equity of 939 million. Not a bad return for a "non-profit" company.

I was not precise enough. Those private insurers are not allowed to make any profits with the basic health insurance. They are allowed to make profits with additional insurance products. There are quite a few "Krankenkassen" who work only on non-profit base. So no bull here.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
And they are regulated as much (or as little) as any other bank or insurance in Switzerland.

That's bull, indeed
I didn't know that other Swiss insurances or banks have to insure everybody - the health insurances are not allowed to reject anybody who wants to be insured. And everybody living in Switzerland has to have an insurance. That's what I call heavy regulated. That's far from being a free market.

pelican
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:25 am

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 7):
What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?

To add to what Skyservice already mentioned:

Every Canadian resident/citizen gets a health insurance card from the province he/she lives in. This is used anytime the individual is admitted to a hospital or has any sort of medical examination or procedure. All reasonable procedures are covered, but drugs are not. Drugs are paid out of pocket, or with the help of a private health insurance plan (purchased by the patient, or the patient's employer/school/whatever).

Waits are indeed pretty long for non-emergency procedures. Even minor emergencies, the kind that require visiting the ER, often take a rather long time to sort out (a few hours for instance), obviously because more urgent cases are being taken care of first.

The system is pretty good all in all, but capacity is a serious issue.

What really baffles me are the doctors themselves. Canada (along with the U.S.) seems to have one of the longest possible training programs for doctors. It takes a good 12 years by my count to become a doctor here. One would think that this would result in some damn good doctors. Unfortunately, the number of blatant mistakes being made by practicioners in this country is ridiculous. It seems that every family has been affected by medical mistakes. Granted, usually it's a relatively minor matter that doesn't result in any real damage but rather just some wasted time and inconvenience.

But this summer I was at a funeral for a man who should still be alive today. He was still in his 40s. Over the course of a few months of treatment, he has been failed by pretty much all the doctors that treated him. Two of the doctors comitted blatant mistakes that were directly responsible for his death. Lucky for the physicians the widow wasn't interested in lawsuits/revenge/etc., but I can't help but wonder how many other people they've killed.

I can only speculate that poorly skilled doctors are the result of a system that doesn't have enough of them (overworked) and doesn't reward the ones it does have enough (underpaid, more lucrative offers in the U.S.). And let's face it, the system can't afford to lose even a single physician, so getting rid of bad doctors is almost impossible.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:59 am

Let's change this a bit.

The Dangers of No Government Health Care:

47 million people without health coverage
17% of the population of the world's richest country without health coverage
20% of GDP spent on health care alone within a decade, double the amount spent in countries with government health care.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:10 am

The US obviously needs to do something about its healthcare issues, but we should look at the Canadian and UK systems as examples of what not to do.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:22 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
47 million people without health coverage

A rather large fraction of which are either fairly well-off people between ages of 18 and 34, and who have decided not to pay for health insurance because they think they are always healthy. This is known as adverse selection. Only 24% of the uninsured earn less than $25K per year.

Another large fraction (over 40%) are non-citizen immigrants (largely illegals), who shouldn't be here in the first place, if they came illegally. No need to cry over them.

Over 50% of the uninsured have only worked part time or have not worked at all in the past year (about half/half)

So your numbers of 47 million people and 17% (actually closer to 15%) are misleading. I'd say only about a third of these numbers are genuinely in need of insurance and should have the right to find it at an affordable cost.

Look up the data for yourself.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:43 am

Then there are the positive stories.

One of my best friend's sister is fighting cancer. She was pretty much living in poverty, and was working a series of odd jobs.

She inquired about Medicaid and Medicaid is now covering her cancer treatment 100% at a renown cancer facility (Moffett.)

And my friend said the way her sister is being treated is terrific.

So our system does often help the people it should.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
Another large fraction (over 40%) are non-citizen immigrants (largely illegals),

No, that is only including those who are documented, not undocumented.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
Over 50% of the uninsured have only worked part time or have not worked at all in the past year (about half/half)

And?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
So your numbers of 47 million people and 17% (actually closer to 15%) are misleading

No, it is actually closer to 17%.

And we still are on pace to spend more than twice as much as comparable industrialized nations and already spend almost twice as much. So much for economic conservatism  sarcastic 
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:01 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
And we still are on pace to spend more than twice as much as comparable industrialized nations

And what country spends more and achieves more in terms of new medical developments and research? Yes, medical spending is high in the US, but you have a number of reasons for that, such as lawsuits and the huge costs of medical research that many other countries (not all, of course) don't bother with - they just buy the MRI machines and drugs after they have been developed elsewhere.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
No, that is only including those who are documented, not undocumented.

What is "Undocumented"? You mean illegal, right? Trespassers?

Anyway, you might be right. The census does not clarify the distinction.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 23):
And?

If you don't work and you are of working age, you don't deserve anything to be given to you, much less expensive health care.

I'll repeat what I've said before - Health care is NOT a right. It is something you have to pay for, one way or another.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
A rather large fraction of which are either fairly well-off people between ages of 18 and 34, and who have decided not to pay for health insurance because they think they are always healthy. This is known as adverse selection. Only 24% of the uninsured earn less than $25K per year.

I'll provide a tangible example of this. We have an employee at my company who is 27 years old, married and with kids. She earns just under $40,000/year. Her husband is a perpetual college student, so he's got student coverage through the university. Kids are on a State of Florida plan that covers them for almost nothing. We offer an excellent insurance plan and pay almost all of the premium. Her max out of pocket in any given year is less than $700 including the premium! The plan pays 100% of everything including prescription drugs when the $550 annual deductible is met. The coverage costs her $18 a month and she refuses to sign up for it because in her words "she thinks it's a waste of money because she's healthy." WTF???????????

You can take a horse to water . . . .
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 25):
she thinks it's a waste of money because she's healthy." WTF???????????

She thinks that the only people who need hospitals/doctors are people with illnesses?

Does she believe she is exempt from car wrecks or other accidents?

jeez.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 26):
She thinks that the only people who need hospitals/doctors are people with illnesses?

Does she believe she is exempt from car wrecks or other accidents?

jeez.

Look, I think she's insane and if she reported directly to me, I'd fire her ass for the lack of intelligence she's demonstrated on this issue alone. However, the person she reports to directly wants to keep her so I respect the decision.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
If you don't work and you are of working age, you don't deserve anything to be given to you, much less expensive health care.

So you should just die then?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
I'll repeat what I've said before - Health care is NOT a right. It is something you have to pay for, one way or another.

One of the 3 rights of the social contract guaranteed by every modern democracy, and specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life. Health care is part and parcel of upholding that right.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
And what country spends more and achieves more in terms of new medical developments and research?

Which has nothing to do with the spending I am talking about. Oh, and you act as if medical achievements aren't made elsewhere. We are great at developing erection pills here in the US, but France is where AIDS was discovered.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
such as lawsuits

Congratulations on not knowing anything and still talking about it, not to mention being off topic.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 24):
The census does not clarify the distinction.

The Census only counts people here who are documented.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:40 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
One of the 3 rights of the social contract guaranteed by every modern democracy, and specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life. Health care is part and parcel of upholding that right.

 redflag 

This is the sort of BS that needs to be called out every single time.

Please direct me to what part of the US Constitution guarantees anyone the right to life? Best I can tell the most the Constitution says is that the government can't deprive you of life without due process (5th and 14th Amendments). However, the Constitution has never been interpreted to say that the government MUST provide you with healthcare when they are not the cause of your illness.

Prove me wrong.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:47 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 29):
Please direct me to what part of the US Constitution guarantees anyone the right to life? Best I can tell the most the Constitution says is that the government can't deprive you of life without due process (5th and 14th Amendments). However, the Constitution has never been interpreted to say that the government MUST provide you with healthcare when they are not the cause of your illness.

I am not talking about how it has been interpreted, I am talking about it as a fundamental right of man in the social contract. We form governments to take care of certain things and both the Locke and Jefferson social contracts include life as the first prong. To deny someone health care because they can't pay is to deprive them of the right to life without due process. My comment had nothing to do with specific legality, but what is actually right.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life.

Are you referring to this:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of Independence
I lift things up and put them down.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
I am not talking about how it has been interpreted, I am talking about it as a fundamental right of man in the social contract.

No sir, that's not what you said. You said:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
One of the 3 rights of the social contract guaranteed by every modern democracy, and specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life.

[emphasis added]

So where in the US Constitution is it specifically noted that anyone has the right to life? Either put up or retract the erroneous statement.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:51 am

I understand that we all need healthcare. I just believe that able-bodied people who have the means to earn an income can pay for their own insurance coverage and leave the govt out of it. The current system of having Medicaid and Medicare for seniors and the needy perhaps should be expanded or improved, but otherwise there's no reason people like me should not be able to pay monthly insurance premiums and minimal out of pocket expenditures.

(And before anyone says anything, no, I am not totally healthy. I have some preexisting conditions that require prescription drugs. A substantial portion of my monthly expenditures are Rx related.)

If I am able to make enough money to pay for trips abroad or pay for meals out, I should be able to make the money to pay for my own health insurance.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 31):
Declaration of Independence

I am talking about the Constitution, though that is also a social contract.

Quoting Pope (Reply 32):
So where in the US Constitution is it specifically noted that anyone has the right to life? Either put up or retract the erroneous statement.

I said nothing erroneous.

Quoting Pope (Reply 32):
No sir, that's not what you said. You said:

You read, or should I say interpreted, a different meaning into my statement than I wrote into it.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:02 am

I think healthcare is a right, and that's what this issue will ultimately boil down to: whether it's OK to let people suffer just because they're poor.

Plus, the US already spends an obscene amount of money on healthcare. It wouldn't be any more than what we're paying now to have nationalized healthcare.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:03 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34):
You read, or should I say interpreted, a different meaning into my statement than I wrote into it.

I read what you wrote and nothing else. You state that the US Constitution specifically notes that there is a "right to life". I'm asking you where specifically the US Constitution says that.

Your full quote reads:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
One of the 3 rights of the social contract guaranteed by every modern democracy, and specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life. Health care is part and parcel of upholding that right.

Aren't you in law school? Haven't you covered this? I think you'd end up sanctioned by a court and/or disbarred if you wrote in a brief that a document "specifically" said something when in fact there's no mention of it. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and said I would accept proof that someone interpreted the Constitution to say what you said it did, yet you're unable to even provide that.

If you say something is specifically in a document, it should be relatively easy to point to it. So once again, where specifically is the right to life talked about in the Constitution?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Oh, and you act as if medical achievements aren't made elsewhere. We are great at developing erection pills here in the US, but France is where AIDS was discovered.

Where did I say that? And BTW, it's kinda true...

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003794.html

Quote:
But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

....

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health's current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

...

Americans do not live longer than people in other countries in part because the innovations that get funded in America get used around the world. In Canada and some European countries drugs are sold for lower prices than in the US. So drug companies make most of their profits and therefore get most of their revenue to fund research by selling products in the United States. Effectively the United States is subsidizing medical research for the rest of the world.




Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
specifically noted in the US Constitution is the right to life. Health care is part and parcel of upholding that right.

The right to life simply means nobody has the right to walk in your door and kill you. Note the Declaration of Independence (Not the Constitution, BTW) says "right to life", not "right to health".

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Congratulations on not knowing anything and still talking about it, not to mention being off topic.

Support that statement. A friend of mine is an Anesthesiologist who pays out a full half his income as malpractice insurance. It follows that if he did not have that expense, he could charge half as much.

Don't forget that while actual awards paid out are not that huge in total, the legal costs are huge. It's the lawyers who make a killing off of the industry, hence their opposition to tort reform.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
So you should just die then?

I'm all for a a minimum safety net. But those who will not do what is needed to pay for what they recieve of their own free will (and quitting school and pumping out babies at age 16 is an act of free will) should not expect to get the same quality health care as everyone else. They might get it, simply as a case of urgency. If someone is wheeled into the emergency ward after a heart attack you can't take the time to find out if he is insured or can afford the treatment. But that should not be a right - it is essentially stealing from the good faith of others.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:09 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 36):
I read what you wrote and nothing else. You state that the US Constitution specifically notes that there is a "right to life". I'm asking you where specifically the US Constitution says that.

You pointed it out yourself. How that right is and should be interpreted may be in question, but I was presenting the view of the vast majority of the industrialized and even developing world.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
The right to life simply means nobody has the right to walk in your door and kill you. Note the Declaration of Independence (Not the Constitution, BTW) says "right to life", not "right to health".

They both include the social contract and health is part and parcel of life

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
A friend of mine is an Anesthesiologist who pays out a full half his income as malpractice insurance.

Then why has Iowa, a state that has not embraced tort "re(de)form", seen both a reduction in its malpractice claims and malpractice rates? How come the doctor that went "on strike" in West Virginia also happened to be the one who was committing the most malpractice? Meanwhile, the insurance companies raid the coffers of their malpractice accounts to artificially inflate profits and you wonder why premiums go up in some places.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 2):
Yes Cfalk, we all know that the government is the great satan.

Government is a necessary evil. The less of it, the better.

People call corporations evil because they act on their own best interest but then fail to realize that politicians act in their own best interest as well! Just because we are democracies doesn't mean that their best interest is something beneficial

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
20% of GDP spent on health care alone within a decade, double the amount spent in countries with government health care.

Yeah, because it hasn't been proven to oblivion by now that state-companies simply don't work. It's frustrating to watch people from the "first world" talk about nationalizing crap all the time when they haven't lived under bureaucratic, shitty service from corrupt and incompetent "state companies."

If we end up spending more on health care, so what? We are getting more bang for the buck, getting more health care, faster health care, better quality or any combination of those.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
You pointed it out yourself. How that right is and should be interpreted may be in question, but I was presenting the view of the vast majority of the industrialized and even developing world.

What did I point out? That the Constitution says nothing about a right to life? That seems to be in direct conflict with what you wrote. There is a hell of a difference between saying that the Constitution contains a right to life provision and that the Constitution says that the government can not deprive you of life without due process. Again, did they not cover this in law school?

Why don't you just admit you were wrong and got caught making up something?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
You pointed it out yourself. How that right is and should be interpreted may be in question, but I was presenting the view of the vast majority of the industrialized and even developing world.

What did I point out? That the Constitution says nothing about a right to life? That seems to be in direct conflict with what you wrote. There is a hell of a difference between saying that the Constitution contains a right to life provision and that the Constitution says that the government can not deprive you of life without due process. Again, did they not cover this in law school?

Why don't you just admit you were wrong and got caught making up something?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:33 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
health is part and parcel of life

No. Life is an on/off switch. Health is a level of quality.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:59 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
If we end up spending more on health care, so what?

In fact, that would show a good trend - people value their health!

If you have to take a penny out of your pocket every time you go to your doctor, perhaps you would feel more inclined to walk up the stairs instead of the escalators next time you are at the mall so you can save some on health care. Once again capitalism giving incentives for people to better themselves, without a single tax-penny.

[Edited 2007-03-29 22:07:04]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:08 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 44):
No. Life is an on/off switch. Health is a level of quality.

You live longer, generally, if you are healthy. Denying someone of health care shortens their life. It turns off the switch.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 42):
Yeah, because it hasn't been proven to oblivion by now that state-companies simply don't work. It's frustrating to watch people from the "first world" talk about nationalizing crap all the time when they haven't lived under bureaucratic, shitty service from corrupt and incompetent "state companies."

Again, we spend twice as much money as other industrialized countries, all of which have a system of national health care, as a percentage of what we produce.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 7):
What is the Canadian system really like? How is the emergency care? the specialists? The family doctor? etc. How does it work?

Basically, there's three different major systems that are often compared. The Canadian, British and American models.

Someone already explained the Canadian system to you very well. Basically, each province has a health insurance plan citizens are put into. Canadians cannot hold private health insurance. So this is a single payer system. Most/all (?) of the providers and facilities are in the private sector, but they all bill the same insurance company.

The British system has two sectors: public and private. The NHS is the public sector, and actually owns the hospitals, clinics, etc and directly hires the providers. Then there is also a competing private system.

The American system has a multitude of different plans for different populations. The government has Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid (state level) for the poor as insurance plans. The government has an NHS-like system for veteran's through the VA system. And then they have the private sector, who is paid by employers and/or people themselves, to provide for others.

- In 2001, Canada had 9.5 CT scanners for every million people, compared to an average of 16.7 scanners among OECD countries. That puts them in 20/24. In 2000, Canadia had 8.2 per million, Britain had 6.5 per million and the US had 13.6 per million.
- In 1996, the Canadian Medical Association reported that 50% of all medical school graduates left Canada before practicing there.
- In 2002, 14% of US patients said a long wait to see their doctor was a large problem, compared to 21% of UK patients reporting the same, and 24% of Canadians making the statement.
- In 2003, the median waiting time from the primary care provider to an orthopedic specialist was 32 weeks, 20 weeks for neurosurgery, and 15 weeks for gynecology.
- In 2001, 5% of American patients had to wait more than four months for an non emergent procedure. That figure was 27% in Canada and 36% in Britain.

All of this figures come from Miracle Cure by Sally Pipes or Lives at Risk, by John Goodman, Gerald Musgrave and Devon Herrick.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Dangers Of Government Health Care

Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 45):
You live longer, generally, if you are healthy. Denying someone of health care shortens their life. It turns off the switch.

Not necessarily. Can it not be argued that providing health care extends life? If the life was going to end without intervention, why is the failure to provide care considered a "shortening" of the life?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, PacificBeach88, Yahoo [Bot] and 34 guests