Is health care a right.

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Is health care a right.

The US health care system will never be fixed without first answering this question, because the answer will dictate what the next step would be. 

I say yes, without a doubt, it is a right.

Firstly we have Article 25 of the UDHR, which classifies health care as a right.

Secondly I would argue that health care is a public good, on the same grounds that we have a public fire service and a public police service. 

I remember read or hearing centuries ago England used to have a fire insurance, and if you didn't have a plaque placed on your house confirming that you had insurance the fire brigade wouldn't drive right by(!), consequently this lead to fire spreading to the properties of people who DID have fire insurance. (I cannot remember where I heard this, by for some reason Tony Ben comes to mind.) Clearly it is in every ones best interest for fire service to be a public service.

Likewise, it is in everyones best interest to have a public police service. If someone house is being burgled, or someone is being harmed, it is the entire neighborhoods best interest for the police to act without confirming insurance details since the criminal may turn to them or their home.

Similarly, it is in everyones best interest to ensure all people have the ability to get health care, regardless of their financial situation. In addition, those providing insurance should not be acting for-profit, which can (and does) cause them to deny treatment, or even deny insurance altogether. A sick person cannot work, and when we get to the issue of contagious illness/diseases, I think it is quite clear that they should be treated.

I have two questions:

1. Is health care a right?

2. What do the Americans here think about government involvement in health care. Whenever I've discussed this with Americans I either get one of two responses... (a) universal/single-payer/socialised health care is no good (something which is completely refuted by the health care systems in other countries) or (b) they just seem to think the US government is incapable of running anything successfully.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There's some

Vastet wrote:
There's some sort of brick wall in your head that has an auto-response of socialism causing bankruptcy as a nation whenever a socialist theme is introduced.

I consider myself a rationalist so I consider every proposal base on it's merits. Some things about socialist systems can be good.

I think what Cuba has done with training a lot of doctors and nurses makes a lot of sense. If the US government is going to spend money on health care, I'd rather see them spend money to alleviate labor shortages.

http://www.sdafp.org/newsletter/2001/springpg4.htm 

But Cuba doesn't have a free market economy that can produce wealth, so they have good doctors but they don't have the money to buy high tech medicine and equipment that can only be developed in a capitalist environment. I also think that Canada has done a better job with negotiating for prescription drug prices, that's why Americans go their to buy drugs. So, I'm not a knee jerk anti-socialist.

I think the USA should do what has worked in Cuba and Canada and not do what doesn't work. Simple as that. Maybe the Federal government should be the single buyer of some drugs since this seems to work in Canada.

Vastet wrote:

It is similar to brainwashed evangelicals who literally don't LISTEN to their opponents. Evidence has been provided that a socialist system of healthcare will NOT result in bankruptcy for anyone. All you have ever done is assert that it will. You do not provide evidence, you do not even argue the point.

[\quote]

I think as long as Canada has trees and other natural resources you can export, it won't go bankrupt. We don't have that option in the USA, we're already broke from entitlements like Medicaid. But look at the evidence of the problems of socialized medicine and socialism:

Canada faces nurse shortage

Canadian Health Care In Crisis

High taxes, low wages drive grads to U.S.

This is a country with far more natural resources per person than the USA.

High income taxes in Denmark worsen a labor shortage

 And look at the example of the Soviet Union, a country with vast natural resources and many high educated workers going bankrupt.

 

Vastet wrote:

It is not. Every time you fail to explain why a socialist health system will go bankrupt, you fail to defend the system that exists.

[\quote]

The only system I want is choice. You decide what you want based on how you spend your own money. Why do you have a problem with that? If I'm an idiot and want to give my money to a greedy insurance company, so what, why do you care? I also want to be able to buy into the Canadian system. That's why I want Canada to offer this option to Americans willing to cross the border for treatment and drugs.

 

Vastet wrote:

You've made some seemingly reasonable suggestions here and there, but forcing insurance companies to pay out is only half the battle. The inevitable result is drastically increased costs for customers so the companies can retain high profits for share holders. That will further reduce the number of people who have health-care, and lower wages to compensate companies providing for employees.

That's why non-profit co-ops make the best sense. The policy holders own the insurance company and not a party that must answer to shareholders. Maybe the government should work to set these up.

Fear is a great motivator. People must have the fear that if they don't do anything to get a good job, they will eventually be without health insurance and not be able to get treated.

I think what you really want is to use the health care system for wealth redistribution. If you want the rich to help the poor, there are better ways to do it than punishing success with high taxes needed for the rich to continually pay for the poor.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But Cuba doesn't

EXC wrote:

But Cuba doesn't have a free market economy that can produce wealth, so they have good doctors but they don't have the money to buy high tech medicine and equipment that can only be developed in a capitalist environment. I also think that Canada has done a better job with negotiating for prescription drug prices, that's why Americans go their to buy drugs. So, I'm not a knee jerk anti-socialist.

I can't help but notice that you've disregarded an important piece of history, here. Sadly, it's American history, and it's from only some 47 years ago. Cuba "lost touch" with the Western world simply by being under the control of a (coincidentally) socialist dictator, and got blacklisted for trade COMPLETELY. From the largest economic power in the world.

So when you say "Cuba doesn't have a free market economy that can produce wealth", you seem to be attributing a total lack of contact with the largest trading partners available on the globe with the free market. Are you suggesting that Cuba blacklisted itself?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I can't

HisWillness wrote:

I can't help but notice that you've disregarded an important piece of history, here. Sadly, it's American history, and it's from only some 47 years ago. Cuba "lost touch" with the Western world simply by being under the control of a (coincidentally) socialist dictator, and got blacklisted for trade COMPLETELY. From the largest economic power in the world.

So when you say "Cuba doesn't have a free market economy that can produce wealth", you seem to be attributing a total lack of contact with the largest trading partners available on the globe with the free market. Are you suggesting that Cuba blacklisted itself?

It is a minor problem that they can't trade with the USA, but they can trade with the rest of the world. So I don't think buying high tech medical equipment and medicine is a big legal problem, it's a money problem. It's the problem that a socialized economy doesn't incentivize starting new businesses, wealth creation or innovation. Corporations don't want to locate there because all the profits and property can be confiscated by the state.

Also, because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: because the

EXC wrote:

 because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

 

lol.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

So Americans are moving to Mexico for the health care.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-31-mexico-health-care_N.htm 

 

 

How about that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Also, because the

EXC wrote:

Also, because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

EXC, that is just pure bullshit. I find it hard to believe you don't know it's pure bullshit.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'll number my responses to

I'll number my responses to yours, as I can't even post your quotes without running out of space.

1: I don't have anything to say to this at this time.

2: a) Canada does not depend on exports for health care, it is paid for by taxes.
b) Those crises you refer to are the direct result of nearly a decade of Conservative mismanagement of the system, in a blatant attempt to discredit socialised healthcare in favour of privatization. If you close 1/4 of your hospitals, lower wages, and reduce benefits, then you're going to have a crises. We can thank Mike Harris, and Mike alone, for a good 70% of the problems we currently have in healthcare.

3: I don't have a problem with choice. But then, most people aren't qualified to make decisions either, in this particular field at least. It could be argued that noone is qualified. I recall an old saying: The doctor who has himself as a patient is a fool. My study of psychology really drove that home. So yeah, you should have some choice, but not so much that you can

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
abuse the system or hurt

abuse the system or hurt yourself.

4: Since this discussion centres around healthcare as opposed to socialism in general, I can gladly say that this has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. It has to do with healthcare redistribution, and that's it. The rich may see a slight increase in taxes, but so will the poor. The rich don't pay as much in taxes collectively as the poor do. I'm sure it's fairly close, but they have the money to use benefits and loopholes for tax breaks that most poor have no access to. And the poor outnumber them more than a hundred thousand to one.

Also, dedicated taxes on commodities known to be unhealthy that go directly to healthcare coffers could lower the burden on taxpayers significantly. If you paid an extra buck for a pack of smokes or to eat at McDonalds, and that money went straight to healthcare, then the taxpayers wouldn't see as much increase in taxes, and you just might lower demand for services in the process.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Also, because the

EXC wrote:

Also, because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

Even if I pretend this is true, I can fix it with transparency laws and make the details accessible to the public. A corporation cannotfor competitions sake. The government doesn't compete, so you just have to worry about individuals corrupting the system to their benefit, as opposed to individuals AND groups of anonymous investors with plenty of capital and other resources who are more capable and harder to track.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:EXC wrote:Also,

Eloise wrote:

EXC wrote:

Also, because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

EXC, that is just pure bullshit. I find it hard to believe you don't know it's pure bullshit.

OK then, what is your theory on why corporations that have lots of corruption and incompetence don't have competitors enter the market and take away their business? If you believe that an insurance companies have massive inefficiencies while still making massive profits, why aren't you writing a letter to a venture capitalist with this evidence and a plan to run an efficient company? If all this left wing propaganda you believe is true, why aren't you all billionaires?

I actually agree with you somewhat that there is corruption and incompetence in corporations. But I'll let you guess the reason why this exists.

And if having politicians run our health care is the best way to go, won't voters that don't want high taxes pressure the politicians to "deny treatment rather than actually provide it"? Which is the great evil of capitalist provided health care?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:2: a) Canada

Vastet wrote:

2: a) Canada does not depend on exports for health care, it is paid for by taxes.

You have a lumber export tax:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=4224ead4-84a2-4060-bee2-3bee3980fcb9

You have high taxes on lumber companies and the their workers. Canda exports food, fish, minerals, etc.. all of which depend on having vast natural resourses you can exploit to generate hard currency to pay for health care. So I don't think Canda should brag about your "free" medical care until you no longer have deforestation and other environmental overuse proplems.

The US econonomy must depend on the development of high technology, we don't have vast tracts of virgin forests to exploit. Our economy depends on having low taxes to attract capital, companies and workers(like Canadians).

Tell me, if you were made the Benevolent dictator of Haiti today. You believe health care is a human right, you have a very limited budget and nothing to export. You have 1000 people in need of expensive medical treatment to save their lives, then you have a million hungry people. Where do you spend the money if health care is a human right?

 

Vastet wrote:

 But then, most people aren't qualified to make decisions either, in this particular field at least. It could be argued that noone is qualified.

Then are people qualified to elect public officials that run our health care as well? Sounds like then we should just have a benevolent dictator run everything including health care.

Isn't this really a problem of the failed education systems and people not being taught critical thinking skills? So this is why so many people are not good at selecting a health insurance company or a political party or a politician. People will believe any BS thrown at them by a corporation, religion or a politician. Why not worry about fixing this problem first?

 

Vastet wrote:

 

Even if I pretend this is true, I can fix it with transparency laws and make the details accessible to the public.

And if the politicians don't write the laws or don't follow the laws, nothing happens. It takes years to get them out of office, even then they collect a pension. All the while I still must pay taxes, I don't have a choice about giving the government my money. I can decide not to give my money to a corporation that sucks.

Vastet wrote:

A corporation cannotfor competitions sake. The government doesn't compete, so you just have to worry about individuals corrupting the system to their benefit,

What are you talking about? We have tons of corruption in government programs. We have phony doctors creating all kinds of bogus treatments to get medicaid dollars. Insurance companies stop fraud because it costs their bottom line. Politicians don't get fired when the government runs a deficit, CEOs do get fired.

Vastet wrote:

as opposed to individuals AND groups of anonymous investors with plenty of capital and other resources who are more capable and harder to track.

So don't give these corporations your money. You don't have this choice with government and taxes.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So what if we have tax on

So what if we have tax on lumber to make up for YOUR taxing of our lumber? That has nothing to do with healthcare.

"You have high taxes on lumber companies and the their workers. Canda exports food, fish, minerals, etc.. all of which depend on having vast natural resourses you can exploit to generate hard currency to pay for health care. So I don't think Canda should brag about your "free" medical care until you no longer have deforestation and other environmental overuse proplems."

For one thing, we actually manage these programs scientically and efficiently. There is no such thing as deforestation in Canada, for example. But I've already shot this crap down in this topic, and none of it pays for healthcare. Healthcare is paid for by TAXPAYERS. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS. TAXPAYERS.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Then are people qualified

"Then are people qualified to elect public officials that run our health care as well? Sounds like then we should just have a benevolent dictator run everything including health care.Isn't this really a problem of the failed education systems and people not being taught critical thinking skills? So this is why so many people are not good at selecting a health insurance company or a political party or a politician. People will believe any BS thrown at them by a corporation, religion or a politician. Why not worry about fixing this problem first?"

How about YOU first get a brief education on the medical industry. You think you know the right instruments and drugs to use on brain surgery? You think you can perform one right out of high school? Ridiculous. Critical thinking skills aren't the issue, it's specialised education that has you do such minor things as memorising every affliction known to man, as well as the available treatments and potential complications that makes one qualified to make med decisions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And if the politicians

"And if the politicians don't write the laws or don't follow the laws, nothing happens. It takes years to get them out of office, even then they collect a pension. All the while I still must pay taxes, I don't have a choice about giving the government my money. I can decide not to give my money to a corporation that sucks."

If I wrote the laws, they are there. If they don't follow them, they go to jail. To change the law, you need a referendum. Try and do that with a corporation. Tip: You can't.

"What are you talking about? We have tons of corruption in government programs."

Not anything compared to corporate.

"We have phony doctors creating all kinds of bogus treatments to get medicaid dollars."

Perfect example of corporate fraud, that happens to leach off a government system to boot.

"Insurance companies stop customer fraud because it costs their bottom line."

Fixed. You only missed one word, but it was an important one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Politicians don't get fired

"Politicians don't get fired when the government runs a deficit, CEOs do get fired."

Liar. Politicians get fired every day. It's called the electoral process. While many CEO's keep their jobs by invoking profits at any cost, and can do things like illegal dumping, reducing workforce and workforce wages/benefits, all under the table. They keep their jobs because their harmful practices keep shareholders, the only ones who can fire a CEO, happy with coin.

"So don't give these corporations your money. You don't have this choice with government and taxes."

You are trying to make an argument that TAKES AWAY MY RIGHT TO DO THAT. I go to GOVERNMENT RUN hospitals because they are cheap and deliver good services. You would destroy that, and force me to pay MORE MONEY FOR LESS SERVICES, to greedy corporations. How ridiculous that your suggestions fly in the face of your suggestions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: For one thing,

Vastet wrote:
For one thing, we actually manage these programs scientically and efficiently. There is no such thing as deforestation in Canada, for example. 

 

If've already presented evidence that it is a problem. All these environmentalists are wrong?

http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/NAmerica/Canada.html

Vastet wrote:
  TAXPAYERS.

And where do the TAXPAYERS get their money to pay taxes? In Canada a large portion is from using natural resourses like lumber.

If you were the benovolent dictator of a third world country with overpopulation and little natural resourse, is health care still a right? So you would let 100 people starve to pay for one person's expensive organ transplant. You have this arrogant position that health care is a right only because you live in a country with vast natural resourse to exploit to pay for it.


Vastet wrote:
"How about YOU first get a brief education on the medical industry. You think you know the right instruments and drugs to use on brain surgery? You think you can perform one right out of high school? Ridiculous. Critical thinking skills aren't the issue, it's specialised education that has you do such minor things as memorising every affliction known to man, as well as the available treatments and potential complications that makes one qualified to make med decisions.

Nearly every product you buy involves a high level of technology. So if people don't understand semi-conductor physics, they are unqualified to buy a computer and the government must step in and buy everyone's computer, car, etc...? And how is a politician qualified to make these decisions? He's looking out for himself, not me.

Vastet wrote:
"Politicians don't get fired when the government runs a deficit, CEOs do get fired." Liar. Politicians get fired every day. It's called the electoral process.

And we see how well that works. We see how fraught with corruption it is. It takes a long time, sometimes never to get bad politicians out of office. They work the system to stay in power. Also, people are always going to vote for more benefits for themselves and higher taxes only on people that are richer. This kind of wealth redistribution is unsustainable.

Vastet wrote:

While many CEO's keep their jobs by invoking profits at any cost.

If it so easy to make massive profits, why aren't you competing against them? Then use your own money to start a charity and provide health care to people? This would be real compassion instead of the phony compassion with other people's money.

Vastet wrote:

and can do things like illegal dumping,

 

And the same politicians that can't stop illegal activities are going to be in charge of my health care. No thanks.

Vastet wrote:

reducing workforce and workforce wages/benefits, all under the table.

 

So if a government run program with have more workers at high wages/benefits, how could it be 50% cheaper?

Vastet wrote:

They keep their jobs because their harmful practices keep shareholders, the only ones who can fire a CEO, happy with coin.

 

No, the customer can 'fire' the CEO by cancelling his policy. If you don't pay him, he doesn't work for you.

 
 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote: For

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
For one thing, we actually manage these programs scientically and efficiently. There is no such thing as deforestation in Canada, for example. 

 

If've already presented evidence that it is a problem. All these environmentalists are wrong?

http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/NAmerica/Canada.html

 

I think you're wrong for several reasons, but I'll give you three. First the link you provided is referencing data collect between 1986 and 1988 and it's almost 2010 so your information is woefully out of date.

The second reason is that logging doesn't really cause deforestation. Deforestation is permanently converting land that is covered by forests to other purposes like roads for example. Resource extraction through logging is only temporary and can be offset by afforestation.
 
And third, according to the Canadian Forest Service .02% of Canadian forests are affected by deforestation. Less than 10% of that is due to resource extraction, the majority of the other 90% being due mostly to agriculture an urban development.

So no, deforestation is not a big problem in Canada, and to the extent that it is a problem it's not caused by resource extraction to pay for universal health care.

http://scf.rncan.gc.ca/nouvelles/588

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

EXC wrote:

Also, because the government officials control the economy, they have a lot more corruption, incompetence and cronyism than capitalist markets.

EXC, that is just pure bullshit. I find it hard to believe you don't know it's pure bullshit.

OK then, what is your theory on why corporations that have lots of corruption and incompetence don't have competitors enter the market and take away their business?

What has that got to do with anything? You said that there is more corruption, incompetence and cronyism in socialist economies, that's just ridiculous propaganda. Hate to make the US a scapegoat again but, honestly, when in the last 50 years has any government policy coming out of your big perfect capiltalist state not been pure unadultered big business cronyism? Monolithic capitalism is easily as prone to corruption and incompetence because it too can gain control of a nations entire economy. And there's no denying it, so just stop, please.

EXC wrote:

If you believe that an insurance companies have massive inefficiencies while still making massive profits, why aren't you writing a letter to a venture capitalist with this evidence and a plan to run an efficient company? If all this left wing propaganda you believe is true, why aren't you all billionaires?

WTF! For the last time, I have said insurance companies have massive profits BECAUSE of massive inefficiences. How are you not getting this?

We aren't billionaires because universal health care is not a billion dollar enterprise for the taking, it is an humanitarian good that lays within every nation's means.

 

EXC wrote:

And if having politicians run our health care is the best way to go, won't voters that don't want high taxes pressure the politicians to "deny treatment rather than actually provide it"?

Only if they're stupid enough to deny themselves treatment when they need it. It's their call whether they get it or not, this the BIG difference between socialised health and corporate health.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Gauche already destroyed

Gauche already destroyed your false claim of deforestation, so I'll move from there.

"And where do the TAXPAYERS get their money to pay taxes? In Canada a large portion is from using natural resourses like lumber."

Bullshit. You think were all a bunch of hippies living in wood sheds or something? Yeah, I guess metals, fishing, technology, and commerce in general is beyond us primitive Canadians. All 35 million of us chop down trees for a living. We don't have fancy things like factories and fast food restaurants. Gods forbid a wal mart from setting up shop here.

"If you were the benovolent dictator of a third world country with overpopulation and little natural resourse, is health care still a right?"

I'd have little trouble in a third world country setting up a cost effective healthcare system. Are you saying the mighty US can't do what a third world nation could do?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"So you would let 100 people

"So you would let 100 people starve to pay for one person's expensive organ transplant."

Bullshit. A naked assertion depending on a straw man.

"You have this arrogant position that health care is a right only because you live in a country with vast natural resourse to exploit to pay for it."

Ridiculous. YOU on the other hand have the arrogance to assume that it someone's own fault when their insurance doesn't pay up, assuming they can afford it, which is also their fault. You must have had everything given to you your entire life. You must think the rich have been bred to be rich.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Nearly every product you

"Nearly every product you buy involves a high level of technology. So if people don't understand semi-conductor physics, they are unqualified to buy a computer and the government must step in and buy everyone's computer, car, etc...?"

Turning on a TV is just a bit less complicated than brain surgery, don't you think? Or are you REALLY that stupid?

"And how is a politician qualified to make these decisions? He's looking out for himself, not me."

You love your straw men. Noone said anything about a politician making medical decisions, but you can't resist making things up. Those decisions would be for a doctor to make.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


KirkCameron
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-09-30
User is offlineOffline
hmmmm

Health Care is not a right.  The Bible is very clear on this point and anyone who says otherwise is clearly an evil, deceptive and vile person.

What about the millions of Americans who cannot afford health insurance or are under-insured? Well, {chuckle} clearly these people must lack the true faith in God, have not given me enough money or their is no real evidence that millions of Americans really suffer from this problem.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And we see how well that

"And we see how well that works. We see how fraught with corruption it is."

And when we compare it to corporate structure, it looks clean and innocent. Clearly superior.

"It takes a long time, sometimes never to get bad politicians out of office. They work the system to stay in power."

And with a corporate structure, they never leave at all. They pass it on to their equally corrupt offspring, and it constantly gets worse. Until the general population is SO mad that they kill the rich and take power themselves. I guess that is what you want.

"Also, people are always going to vote for more benefits for themselves and higher taxes only on people that are richer. This kind of wealth redistribution is unsustainable."

Irrelevance, and a straw man.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"If it so easy to make

"If it so easy to make massive profits, why aren't you competing against them? Then use your own money to start a charity and provide health care to people? This would be real compassion instead of the phony compassion with other people's money."

Give me two million dollars. I'll return your investment in twenty years, with a two million dollar interest payment. Until then, stop telling me to get rich when I don't have the capital to become rich. Your circular logic is only amusing for so long.

"And the same politicians that can't stop illegal activities are going to be in charge of my health care. No thanks."

Irony. The one who doesn't notice someone doing something illegal is worse than the one committing the offense?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"So if a government run

"So if a government run program with have more workers at high wages/benefits, how could it be 50% cheaper?"

Because you cut out the middle man. Elementary economics, my dear EXC.

"No, the customer can 'fire' the CEO by cancelling his policy. If you don't pay him, he doesn't work for you."

You don't fire him, because he never worked for you. You don't matter to him at all. He likely has an interest in customers, but that interest is shared by shareholders and employees, significantly reducing his personal concern for customers to a political level. And as a group or groups, not individuals. You have to buy it from somewhere after all. He'll have customers no matter what you do. With the electoral process, you get an actual say. And it's much harder for him to hide. He also has to care about the voters, those are his equivalent to shareholders.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"This kind of

Vastet wrote:
"This kind of wealth redistribution is unsustainable." Irrelevance, and a straw man.

How public health care is to be paid for is irrelevant???? Explain that one.

Vastet wrote:
Give me two million dollars. I'll return your investment in twenty years, with a two million dollar interest payment. Until then, stop telling me to get rich when I don't have the capital to become rich. Your circular logic is only amusing for so long.

If I believed the leftist propaganda, I wouldn't be won over to your point of view. I'd be out trying to become filthy rich by starting a health insurance company. I wouldn't be loaning the money to a competitor.

Why not go to a venture capitalist or a bank, or ask your government? All you need is evidence of the massive profits and easy money you can make. Walmart had no problems raising capital to expand into Canada, why should Canadian style health care have a problem getting started here?

 Your logic is highly flawed. If there is such massive profit and the money is so easy, why aren't all the MBA programs just churning out people that can start health insurance companies?

You have to realize that issues like death and sickness are highly emotional. That's why people fall victim to propaganda and irrational thinking like this. Same as religion because death is such an emotional and fearful subject.

Vastet wrote:
Irony. The one who doesn't notice someone doing something illegal is worse than the one committing the offense?

Right now, the insurance companies have to make sure the doctors and hospitals are not overcharging. The public option requires the politicians do this. The best option is a co-op where the members are the ones in charge of holding doctors and hospitals accountable. Why can't the leftists start one instead of just bitching about how bad capitalist companies are?

 

Vastet wrote:
Because you cut out the middle man. Elementary economics, my dear EXC.

The new government bureaucracy is the middle man. It collects the taxes, decides who get benefits and how and when and with whom they receive these benefits. Same as an insurance company. The only system that could eliminate the middleman would be direct payment by the person receiving treatment.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

 

Vastet wrote:
You don't fire him, because he never worked for you. You don't matter to him at all. He likely has an interest in customers, but that interest is shared by shareholders and employees

The money that pays his salary still comes from the premiums you pay. If you don't like these accountability structures in these companies, fire them.

And if shareholders that want high profits pressure the CEOs to "deny coverage rather than actually provide it", why won't taxpayers that want lower taxes pressure the politicians to do the same? The people of Canada don't pressure the politicians to keep taxes low?

Ultimately this is what will crash government run health care:

47% will pay no federal income tax

You can't sustain a system where the people paying for something are not the one's receiving the benefits. It's an unsustainable system to finance public health care through income tax.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Yes, EXC, it is a terrible thing that will destroy the country. You better hurry and move before it happens, since you have no say in the matter.

 

Good luck finding a country with no universal health plan. I hear Somalia can be nice this time of year.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm disappointed in all of

I'm disappointed in all of you. Dont you know no to feed the trolls. That's the zoo keepers job, their on a special diet of nonsensical irrationality, you know.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I think it's unfair to call

I think it's unfair to call EXC a troll.
His opinion is pretty controversial, and I think it's wrong, but all he's doing is calling it as he really sees it, trying to provide evidence for his claims.
Right or wrong, he's got to keep his opinion honest.
That said, I'm glad he's not in charge of policy making!! Eye-wink


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Good luck

ClockCat wrote:

Good luck finding a country with no universal health plan. I hear Somalia can be nice this time of year.

Yes. Somilia needs universal health care. They need to spend the small amount of money in their treasury on whatever expensive medical procedure a doctor deems necessary. To hell with feeding people, educating people or security, after all health care is a human right.

So if you were the dictator of Somolia, say you have $1 million in your treasury you can spend. You have 10 people that will die in the next month without a $100,000 organ transplant. Then you have 1 million people that will die without food, 10,000 women that will be raped without more security. Is health care still a human right?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"How public health care is

"How public health care is to be paid for is irrelevant???? Explain that one."

It has already been explained to you how it is to be paid for. That's why your comment is irrelevant.

"If I believed the leftist propaganda, I wouldn't be won over to your point of view. I'd be out trying to become filthy rich by starting a health insurance company. I wouldn't be loaning the money to a competitor."

Finally you understand my problem. It only took you a year, if considering the other topic on top of this one. How am I to raise capital when everyone I approach will simply use the idea themselves?

"Why not go to a venture capitalist or a bank, or ask your government?"

Do you even think before responding? We already HAVE comprehensive healthcare in Canada. Why would my government give me money to compete with themselves? And what bank wouldn't laugh me away for the same reason? What capitalist wouldn't just do it themselves?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"All you need is evidence of

"All you need is evidence of the massive profits and easy money you can make. Walmart had no problems raising capital to expand into Canada, why should Canadian style health care have a problem getting started here?"

Oh yeah, now I compare to one of the largest corporations in the world, that's so big it can make money by sitting on its ass.
And a social system is somehow comparative to a capitalist one. It would be funny if it weren't such a sad example of your lack of critical thinking skills.

" Your logic is highly flawed. If there is such massive profit and the money is so easy, why aren't all the MBA programs just churning out people that can start health insurance companies?"

Look who's talking. You're the one saying it's so easy to get rich that it must be your own fault if you aren't. But you never consider the impossibility of creating a national corporation from nothing. You yourself even admitted you'd do it yourself instead of give me the money. You right wing extremists are all the same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You have to realize that

"You have to realize that issues like death and sickness are highly emotional."

No shit sherlock.

"That's why people fall victim to propaganda and irrational thinking like this. Same as religion because death is such an emotional and fearful subject."

Like yourself, as a perfect example of swallowing propaganda.

"Right now, the insurance companies have to make sure the doctors and hospitals are not overcharging."

Insurance companies have no such effect. Doctors charge what they agreed to when taking residence at the hospital. The hospital charges what it likes. The only controlling effect is competition.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
" The public option requires

" The public option requires the politicians do this. The best option is a co-op where the members are the ones in charge of holding doctors and hospitals accountable. Why can't the leftists start one instead of just bitching about how bad capitalist companies are?"

This doesn't make a lick of sense.

"The new government bureaucracy is the middle man."

That's the source, not a middle man, by definition.

"It collects the taxes, decides who get benefits and how and when and with whom they receive these benefits."

You're right that the government collects the taxes, but that's all you got right. Standards of practice are ALREADY regulated by government. The rest is for the doctor to decide. Not a bureaucrat.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Same as an insurance

"Same as an insurance company."

Not even close.

"The only system that could eliminate the middleman would be direct payment by the person receiving treatment."

No, that's just one way. A way to bankrupt 4/5's of the population at that.

"Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance"

Pre-refuted dozens of times by dozens of links in this topic.

"The money that pays his salary still comes from the premiums you pay. If you don't like these accountability structures in these companies, fire them."

Perhaps 0.000000001% of his wages would come from MY premiums. It is not a detriment to the CEO to lose me as a customer. He wouldn't even notice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And if shareholders that

"And if shareholders that want high profits pressure the CEOs to "deny coverage rather than actually provide it", why won't taxpayers that want lower taxes pressure the politicians to do the same? The people of Canada don't pressure the politicians to keep taxes low?"

Not at the risk of healthcare we don't. We'd rather have a bed waiting for free at a moments notice than spend a little less on taxes every year.

"Ultimately this is what will crash government run health care:47% will pay no federal income tax"

The last 3 times I went to CNN.com, it tried to freeze my PS3. Could you just post the relevant text please?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Good luck finding a country with no universal health plan. I hear Somalia can be nice this time of year.

Yes. Somilia needs universal health care. They need to spend the small amount of money in their treasury on whatever expensive medical procedure a doctor deems necessary. To hell with feeding people, educating people or security, after all health care is a human right.

So if you were the dictator of Somolia, say you have $1 million in your treasury you can spend. You have 10 people that will die in the next month without a $100,000 organ transplant. Then you have 1 million people that will die without food, 10,000 women that will be raped without more security. Is health care still a human right?

Last I checked, Somalia doesn't spend government funding to feed their people. And the 'security' provided is more to protect the dictatorship than the people.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Good luck finding a country with no universal health plan. I hear Somalia can be nice this time of year.

Yes. Somilia needs universal health care. They need to spend the small amount of money in their treasury on whatever expensive medical procedure a doctor deems necessary. To hell with feeding people, educating people or security, after all health care is a human right.

So if you were the dictator of Somolia, say you have $1 million in your treasury you can spend. You have 10 people that will die in the next month without a $100,000 organ transplant. Then you have 1 million people that will die without food, 10,000 women that will be raped without more security. Is health care still a human right?

Last I checked, Somalia doesn't spend government funding to feed their people. And the 'security' provided is more to protect the dictatorship than the people.

 

 

It is more entertaining that EXC is now arguing for government handouts of food and rape security. Here I thought he was against all government involvement...

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC I have a few things to

EXC I have a few things to say.

 

1.  Your Somalian argument can be, crudely, summed up as "You are in charge of a bankrupt country.  Try spend money! Lulz".  If I'm being more generous I'd state that you're making a false assumption.  Many of the people you're aruing with believe that healthcare is a human right.  No-one said that it was Human Right Prime, to be excercised above and beyond anything else.  So your pitching of 10 organ surgeries against thousands of starving people is a straw man of your own devising.

2.  Further to the previous point:  Feeding people is a health care issue.  If I don't eat I die.  Feeding me keeps me healthy.  So choosing the starving over organ failures is a no-brainer.

3.  Devising a health care scenario in a bankrupt country is far from the example of importing a social healthcare system into a capitalist system.  If you're going to build strawmen try to bundle them together.  They burn easier.

4.  I've still not seen you address why Britain isn't bankrupt.  We have social healthcare.  We're capitalists.  We also have private healthcare.  The NHS has, in actual fact, kept me alive.  I'm going to be using private healthcare for some dental issues.  We're doing just fine.  When does your financial apocalypse strike? 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
MichaelMcF wrote:EXC I have

MichaelMcF wrote:

EXC I have a few things to say.

 

1.  Your Somalian argument can be, crudely, summed up as "You are in charge of a bankrupt country.  Try spend money! Lulz".  If I'm being more generous I'd state that you're making a false assumption.  Many of the people you're aruing with believe that healthcare is a human right.  No-one said that it was Human Right Prime, to be excercised above and beyond anything else.  So your pitching of 10 organ surgeries against thousands of starving people is a straw man of your own devising.

I don't see why it's a strawman. They present a political philosophy, they should defend this idea that health care is a "right" under all kinds of what-if senarios. The definition of human right says the person is entitled to something. It comes into conflict with other "rights" and government can't wave a magic wand to provide it to everyone. It seems it is only proper to say the health can be a priority but not a human right.

MichaelMcF wrote:

2.  Further to the previous point:  Feeding people is a health care issue.  If I don't eat I die.  Feeding me keeps me healthy.  So choosing the starving over organ failures is a no-brainer.

So then governments should spend money first on the food supply first, then if there is any money left over spend it on health care? So then food is a "human right" as well, with a higher priority. So if the economists determine that lower taxes will attract more industry and offer more jobs that will enable people to buy food, we should keep taxes low and not spend much on health care?

MichaelMcF wrote:

3.  Devising a health care scenario in a bankrupt country is far from the example of importing a social healthcare system into a capitalist system.  If you're going to build strawmen try to bundle them together.  They burn easier.

So public healthcare can only be imported to a country that is not bankrupt? I guess that would leave the USA out then.

MichaelMcF wrote:

4.  I've still not seen you address why Britain isn't bankrupt.  We have social healthcare.  We're capitalists.  We also have private healthcare.  The NHS has, in actual fact, kept me alive.  I'm going to be using private healthcare for some dental issues.  We're doing just fine.   

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/19/britain’s-failing-credit/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6169324.ece

I thought you were going bankrupt. Britian just like the USA has trillions of unfunded pensions and medical care they will have to pay out over the coming decades. And the high taxes will drive tax payers away.

MichaelMcF wrote:

When does your financial apocalypse strike?

When I'm ready to retire or I have a medical condition. Then the government will be too broke to pay me back for the taxes I've paid in over the years. All ponzi schemes collapse.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Japan's health care system isn't bad either. Price fixing works.

 

They subsidize health care the same way we subsidize our cattle, dairy, and other farming industries.

 

I want a public option or single payer short of that.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC

EXC wrote:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/19/britain’s-failing-credit/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6169324.ece

I thought you were going bankrupt. Britain just like the USA has trillions of unfunded pensions and medical care they will have to pay out over the coming decades. And the high taxes will drive tax payers away.

 

I've got limited time so I'll answer this and address the rest later.  

 

The first link talks about Britain being worse off than America in a "spend and borrow" economic sense with our increasing debt.  There's nothing in there that ties it into the healthcare system.  Just government spending as a whole.  There are several plans being proposed from all the major parties that can save the country anything from 2 to 13 billion pounds and they don't even touch healthcare.  So I'm still not convinced by your argument that social healthcare will ruin a country.

 

I'll agree with you that high taxes will drive people away.  The wrong people though.  The 50% tax discussed in the second link is on people earning about £150k a year or more (a band which the Chancellor is conveniently just below) it's an income tax.  It will affect those that want to make lots of money personally it doesn't affect an entrepreneur's business in the slightest.  If someone earning £150k a year tries to tell me that he can't live comfortably on his £75k after tax I'll laugh in his face and tell him that's he living beyond his means.  If you're an entrepreneur in Britain that's an easy hit to take which only slightly affects your business' salary contributions and, if you're earning £150k a year, your business should be designed to take that hit.  I find it telling that the people that are being vocal about the tax hike are all multi-millionaires already, men with the nous to dodge the tax system quite effectively as it is.  The article itself even says "the wealthy can always find ways to avoid it".

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not necessarily saying I like the idea of a 50% tax bracket.  All I'm saying is that it doesn't have as big an impact on the high earners as people would like to think and if a potential entrepreneur's business can't handle the corporate contributions towards his £150k salary because of that bracket then he's built his business plan badly.  Plus, that sort of tax bracket puts us on par with several Scandinavian countries.  The only difference between us and them is that their services work.  So what sets us apart from them?  Bad management and horrendous bureaucracy.  Still not really a commentary on a social system.  America has bad management and horrendous bureaucracy after all.

 

 

 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Japan's

ClockCat wrote:

Japan's health care system isn't bad either. Price fixing works.

 

Japan's Doctor Shortage Resulting in Patient Deaths 

The Nurse Shortage Problem in Japan

Only in the very short term will price fixing work. It will inevitable lead to more shortages and higher costs.

ClockCat wrote:

They subsidize health care the same way we subsidize our cattle, dairy, and other farming industries. 

 

In the case of food, economists have warned policy makers of the dangers of under-supply of food. That's why they policy is directed toward creating an oversupply. They subsidize farmers so they won't go out of business if the price they can get is too low to stay in business.

If we wanted to insure an oversupply of medical services, seems like the thing to do is educate a ton of doctors and nurses. Subsidize hospital and pharmaceutical plant construction. Price fixing and paying for the poor's services makes the under-supply problem worse.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Japan's health care system isn't bad either. Price fixing works.

 

Japan's Doctor Shortage Resulting in Patient Deaths 

The Nurse Shortage Problem in Japan

Only in the very short term will price fixing work. It will inevitable lead to more shortages and higher costs.

 

What does this have to do with doctor or nurse shortages that are happening worldwide?

 

I don't understand your point. They are happening the U.S. now. They have been happening the last 20-30 years. They will in all likelihood continue to happen, short of a large push towards education in these fields.

 

 

 

Your statement reminded me of that guy on the DC protest video. "Could a different plan produce new doctors?" 


 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jes11434 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It works for those who

It works for those who believe...works for meEye-wink


ragnarok2012 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Health Care Not a Right

Ask yourself a simple question: Do I have the right to drive?  In most states the answer is NO.  You have the right to own a car, but actually driving it legally is a privilege, for which you pay substantial amounts of money for your driver's license, vehicle registration and auto insurance.  To me it seems the highest form of the entitlement mentality to declare universal health care a right all of a sudden, after a few hundred years of 'fend for yourself.'  We cannot compare this country to others, because our histories, although at times overlapping, are not completely congruent; we have different speech, different ideals, different governments, etc.  No amount of equivocation will replace reality or the facts held therein.

Even our Bill of Rights in the Constitution was never considered a no-brainer, and when it came to signing the document, only a handful of statesmen held out for its inclusion, whereas the majority of the signers were ambivalent towards it.  'Rights' are nebulous, and seem to change with the newest group of seemingly-disaffected citizens.  The concept of natural rights itself was the product of an ongoing dialogue between a number of well-meaning individuals, and not the fruition of common sense that it is often considered today.  

Our government can't seem to pay the proper price for a toilet seat or a hammer, so why do we believe that it can effectively manage healthcare?  Medicare is in trouble, our servicemen do not get the proper treatment as they need it (even though our government, in both cases, has promised to do right by them) and we can point to many ongoing and past ethics and corruption probes conducted with government officials (elected and appointed) as their focus.  Can we really be so naive to think that these very same people are going to work in our best interests and run our healthcare efficiently?  The Congressional Budget Office issues various reports outlining how the government spends our tax dollars, and the general gist is that government entities routinely OVERPAY for equipment and services, most of which would cost markedly less if a private citizen attempted to purchase them on his or her own, and this includes items nominally used for healthcare concerns, like diabetic testing systems, hospital beds, bandages, medications and a whole lot more.   

I used to have a nice corporate job with excellent health benefits, and before that I worked for a small business with less than 30 employees that also provided me with health coverage.  I was quite happy to have something, even though it still cost me some of my own money to get it, regardless of whether I actually used it or not (the definition of insurance, eh?).  Companies can often afford to do this for their employees because they can get tax credits for doing so, and their sizable buying power can lower the costs considerably.  When I got laid off I saw how much it would have still cost me to maintain that coverage under the COBRA program, a staggering 225 dollars a month just for myself, which would have been a nice chunk of my monthly unemployment compensation.  I chose, like many others, to forgo this option and hope for the best, knowing full well that: a) My doctor would still see me, just charge me the full amount for a visit; b) I would still be able to walk into an emergency room with a serious problem and receive treatment; c) be able to access any number of free clinics that specifically cater to those without insurance.  Not to forget, that health services rendered now can be paid later if you are forthright and enter into a payment agreement with the provider.

We used to be a nation staunchly independent on an individual basis, a condition not lost on many writers from other countries who came here and marveled at the American Experience and the wherewithal of Americans to succeed and prosper through diligence and hard work.  The healthcare debate is no different.  We are giving away far too much and asking for too little in return.  If our government and the current crop of leftists running it are so interested in every citizen having health coverage, then perhaps other changes are in order, before selling each one of us a bill of goods that can't possibly be true. 

1) STOP TAXING HEALTH BENEFITS AS INCOME

2) GIVE ALL BUSINESSES WHO PROVIDE HEALTH COVERAGE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES MASSIVE TAX CREDITS ENTIRELY REFLECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND THE LEVEL OF COVERAGE GIVEN, AND REQUIRE THAT THOSE CREDITS BE APPLIED ENTIRELY TO EMPLOYEE COVERAGE, WITH THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AS PROOF OF COMPLIANCE (i.e., smaller companies receive larger tax credits to offset the profit differentials, programs with smaller co-pays and deductibles recieve larger credits, and companies show the govt the bill with corroborating evidence from the insurance company, or require the insurance companies to turn over that info automatically)

3) GIVE ALL TAX PAYING CITIZENS THE SAME MASSIVE TAX CREDITS PER FAMILY MEMBER, AND CHALLENGE THEM TO SAVE THAT MONEY FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES ONLY. 

4) FOR THOSE ALREADY RECEIVING GOVT HEALTH BENEFITS AND FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT WORK OR ARE VULNERABLE (CHILDREN, HANDICAPPED, ELDERLY, ETC.) EXPAND MEDICARE COVERAGE AND MAKE COBRA A FULL GOVT PROGRAM. 

5) COMMIT TO COMPLETE AND TOTAL TORT REFORM IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE COST OF MALPRACTICE INSURANCE FOR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS AND IN ORDER TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT ON LITIGATION (WHICH IS ALREADY FUNDED BY OUR TAX DOLLARS)

6) ALLOW HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COMPETE ACROSS STATE LINES, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SERVICES AT LOWER COSTS THROUGH MARKET COMPETITION.

Injecting more personal responsibility into the equation is a much better idea and keeping in line with the AMERICAN WAY.  We can't keep giving away everything just for some sugar-plum ideals that cannot work in our society without completely changing our way of life.  How much are you willing to change your own life just so that someone who doesn't deserve it can have everything that you have worked so hard for?   

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"We can't keep giving away

"We can't keep giving away everything just for some sugar-plum ideals that cannot work in our society without completely changing our way of life."

That's exactly what needs to happen.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.- Winston Churchill"

Appeals to authority are rejected. He had no experience with socialism at all, and isn't qualified to make a judgement.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Capitolism vs. health care..

We will never have good health care as long as there is capitolism involved. For some reason, this system (which is one of the worst) was set up to make money. And if you are trying to make money then you are looking for the best customers not the poorest. Our system ranks 32nd in mortality and 37 in infant mortality. How can these damn republicans like Mitch (asshole) McConnell and Glenn (I make my own truths) Beck say that we have the best system in the world with statistics like this? My opinion is that we shouldn'nt have our health care based on what we can pay. How many of us have died because of insufficient insurance? Why is it that most of us are one big sickness away from losing everything that we have worked so hard for? It's not fair and shouldn't be legal but it is because our health care system is a business not a service like they try to call it. Sure we have the best doctors in the world cause they all come here to live cause this is where the money is. Ask one.

    I work everyday and have children but I can't afford health care. Why do I have to stay sick while other more fortunate people are taken great care of? There needs to be a service that actually provides health care to people like us.. One asshole told me at a tea party that all I had to do was go to the emergency room and they couldn't turn me down. Well that's true that they have to see you but I have a little horror story of my own involving the emergency room. I had a mild stroke at the tender age of 27 one morning when I got up to go to the bathroom and fell right in the floor. I couldn't open my right eye and was drooling all over myself. I couldn't even use my mouth to talk. I murmered to my wife to take me to the emergency room. We went and finally I got in only to have some hack tell me that they couldn't find anything wrong with me and that I needed to go and get some rest. They didn't even do blood work on me. I asked him "How can there not be anything wrong with me? I don't usually look like this and drool all over myself. I can't even open my eyes!!" He told me that it was probably a reaction to me trying to quit cigarettes.. What a joke!! I was furious and called my old and retired family physician and went to see her and she lost it. She called the hospital and reemed those hacks out for me and put me on a steroid and after a while I got the feeling back in the left side of my body and was better. But had it not been for her then I wouldn't have gotten any help and could've ended up with a permanent problem all because I didn't have insurance.. This is just a minor story about the issues of our health care system. What about all the people who have died of cancer cause they couldn't afford the proper treatments? This has to be fixed.

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm so late on a lot of

I'm so late on a lot of these threads, and without reading all of the comments, I'll give my opinion. In a word, NO. People are not entitled to healthcare, it's a service, a good.People have this strange notion that they are to be given these services from some higher authority simply because they exist. Malhalla said,"I work everyday and have children but I can't afford health care. Why do I have to stay sick while other more fortunate people are taken great care of?" Well, why do more fortunate people have to pay for your healthcare? Why do you want to pay higher taxes for substandard healthcare? There are many options that would help, like getting rid of the income tax. Or how about this, let the free market do what it's supposed to do and stop letting the government interfere with everything. Do you people that want government run healthcare honestly think that they will do a good job? Look at the programs that they've tried with healthcare that they mismanaged, like medicare and medicaid. How about social security, a program that we all pay into that will be bankrupt by the time we need it. If the government takes over, we will have the cheapest means of treatment available, and will have to wait for ridiculous amounts of time to receive treatment. People need to stop relying on the government to solve their issues, and expect them to coddle you from cradle to grave. The money for these programs have to come from somewhere, and where do you think that will be? People bitch about paying taxes but want the government to do all of this shit to take care of them. Maybe if we got rid of 90% of the useless programs that we have in place now, and stop trying to support our empire, we could afford it.But even still, it's not a right, it's a service, and government run healthcare is also unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it permit the government to be involved in healthcare. I'll be leaving the military in a week, and I'll be without healthcare as well, but I'll do my damnedest to get a job where my employer will provide it or where I can make enough money to afford it myself. People also want to bitch that they have kids and can't afford healthcare for them, well, there's an easy answer for that too. If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. I'm 30 years old and would love to have a kid or two by now, but I can't afford it, and I'm certainly not going to expect the state and other tax payers to pay for my kids. All of these programs, welfare, healthcare, social security, they are all detrimental to society because people are less responsible because of them. Why the hell would you work if the government is going to take care of you? I'm going off on a tangent. So, in short, let the free market work it out and we'll be much better off. Get the government out of private business.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Is the US

Topher wrote:

Is the US government really this inept and functionally useless as this person seems to think?

Of course US gvt. is NOT inapt. However, just like any other government, they propagate interests of people who employ them – in the case of US this is overwhelmingly the corporate sector.

So how competent are they? They manage to coerce half the world on daily basis, have military bases in more than 100 countries, are organized enough to kill tens of thousands of Americans and millions of brown and yellow people in a chain of wars since the last big one, while only select few profit. On top of that they manage to sell bogus economic theories to 300 mio. Americans and billions world wide, while they themselves follow NONE of the snake-oil principles. Free-trade? Not for them, they know better than surrendering their resources to hostile players, but they sure as shit will have you surrender your tariffs. “Specialisation of production” has caused more death by famine in the US-influenced third world in the last decade then all terrorist attacks in the known universe combined and multiplied by a factor of thousand. No public health care for them? You must be joking, every little legislator in senate is covered by the federal health care, while top corporate executives are wealthy enough to finance their own hospitals. Incompetent? I think not. We could have been in the Andromeda system playing golf with aliens by now, if the employers of the legislators were Phd’s in astrophysics. Is it a problem? Hell yes. I don’t know who you are and what ideas you are sporting, but if you think the current state of affairs is cool, just skip to the second part of the last sentence in this post.

Eventually we get to healthcare – they know the value of it for democratic function of a society and they are not – and I repeat – NOT willing to give that weapon over to “special interest groups” of women, minorities, elderly, young, children and periodically ill people. In other words, the whole goddamn population is a “special interest group”, while the “national interest” is represented by the executive branch of the fortune 500, plus the control class.

But it’s not all bad, because control class can only do so much. Yea, the last bill that passed congress was basically a transfer of cash from public to private hands with no impact on health care, other than reaffirming the corporate “insurance” hold on the political sphere and no real health care for anyone. But civil unrest is inches below the surface and legislators will have to bend or break eventually. People might tolerate army killing brown people somewhere far away, but the number of people who lost someone precious to a CIGNA bureaucrat is growing by the day and they aren’t happy. This number will unfortunately only grow in the years to come, because realistic unemployment is in two-digit percentiles, very likely in the twenties. Time to fight is now - and many do. Heres a group that has activelly held feet to the fire of a republican governor for years: http://www.calnurses.org/

By the way, I don’t live in the US and have only spent like 6 months studying in Columbia, MD back in 2004. But I follow everything that happens, 'cause your soldiers are killing people in my back yard, while one of US sponsored regimes is keeping the largest and most ruthless concentration camp in the history of the world just accross the street. If you happen to be from US and don’t already know everything I just said and much, much more, I shit on your ignorant face in hope that my excrement wil sieve through your eye sockets and into your brain, effectively impregnating you with the minimum of common sense.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.