PDA

View Full Version : Guns or Health Care?


Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 03:20 PM
Broadly speaking, Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms and Democrats do not; Democrats favour Universal Health Coverage and Republicans do not.

So let's say you have two candidates: The Republican will work hard to guarantee that your RTKBA will not be infringed, but has stated that s/he absolutely will not support a 'Socialist' agenda by working toward UHC; and the Democrat will strive to ban certain types of firearms, but will do everything possible to secure UHC.

What's more important to you?

Suppose one or the other candidate 'gives' on his or her opposition. For example, maybe the Republican concedes that health care benefits will be extended to the unemployed as an unemployment benefit; and the Democrat grandfathers in already-owned firearms so that people can keep them if they choose?

carnivorousplant
10-14-2007, 03:32 PM
Can't I have both? Can't we keep our guns and shoot the guys who oppose UHC? :)

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2007, 03:33 PM
One is Constitutionally protected, one is not. One is maintenance of the status quo, one is not.

I'd support the Republican for the purposes of election, knowing that others would vote in politicians with conflicting views, thus maintaining the balance.

carnivorousplant
10-14-2007, 04:18 PM
Good idea. I will vote for the Democrat, obtaining UHC and feeling secure that the present Supreme Court would overturn his anti Second Amendment legislation.

silenus
10-14-2007, 04:32 PM
We've got great health care coverage through work, so my vote goes to the person who will protect RTKBA.

Bobotheoptimist
10-14-2007, 04:34 PM
If those are the only two positions these candidates hold, I'd vote for the Republican. A single person can't bring universal health care into being, but I think it'd be easier for one person to stop another gun grab.

Boyo Jim
10-14-2007, 05:04 PM
Well, my retirement plan is to have a stroke and die at my desk. UHC might keep me clinging to life, and my health care decision-maker might find a gun handy.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 05:17 PM
Self defense is an inalienable right. Health care, by contrast, is a luxury. Everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, but no one has a right to health care.

A.R. Cane
10-14-2007, 05:40 PM
Let's see now, is it more likely that the average American is going to need a gun, or that they'll need medical care? Oh, wait! We could just issue a carry permit along w/ every birth certificate and make marksmanship a required elementary school subject.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 06:00 PM
We could just issue a carry permit along w/ every birth certificate and make marksmanship a required elementary school subject.Sounds good to me! :D

Heck, I think guns are more important than education, let alone "health care."

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 06:03 PM
Heck, I think guns are more important than education, let alone "health care."
'I'm afraid your condition is chronic. [rack-RACK!]'

Lumpy
10-14-2007, 06:08 PM
Couldn't we compromise? Universal health care for all gun-related injuries? :D

glee
10-14-2007, 06:25 PM
Come to England, where we have full gun control and National Health Care for all! :cool:

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 06:41 PM
Thanks, glee, but I like shooting.

Still, I think that UHC is more important than gun rights. (Which is not to say I think the latter are not important.)

A.R. Cane
10-14-2007, 07:23 PM
Come to England, where we have full gun control and National Health Care for all! :cool:

Pinko! ;)

mnemosyne
10-14-2007, 07:43 PM
...but no one has a right to health care.

I'm sure it's been done to death in GD, but why not?.

If one has the right to say what they want, meet up with other people who want to say the same things, own weapons, and not be discriminated against based on [the various protected classes] then why is the right to health (to not be sick or suffering) not a given right? If the alleviation/prevention of illness and injury can be done, shouldn't it it done?

What makes it different?

As a Canadian, the choice in the OP was made a long time ago by our governments. In this example, I'd vote for the democrat, but the RTKBA isn't really something I've had to think about much. I wouldn't own a gun, and I have no particular interest in learning how to use one.

I don't really want to debate this (I'm a terrible debater anyways!), but can someone perhaps give me a summary of the arguments as to why "no one has the right to health care"? I'm curious to hear that side of the argument.

carnivorousplant
10-14-2007, 07:56 PM
"no one has the right to health care"? I'm curious to hear that side of the argument.
I suspect it could be argued that it is not specified in the US Constitution, as one could argue that the right to own a firearm is.
On the other hand, one could argue that an enlightened society should provide health care for it's citizens. "Right" vs. "right", I suppose.
But we digress from the OP. :)

Harriet the Spry
10-14-2007, 07:57 PM
I don't really want to debate this (I'm a terrible debater anyways!), but can someone perhaps give me a summary of the arguments as to why "no one has the right to health care"? I'm curious to hear that side of the argument.

This statement is true with respect to the rights granted in the U.S. Constitution. Other governments can be set up to confer different rights.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm sure it's been done to death in GD, but why not?.

If one has the right to say what they want, meet up with other people who want to say the same things, own weapons, and not be discriminated against based on [the various protected classes] then why is the right to health (to not be sick or suffering) not a given right? If the alleviation/prevention of illness and injury can be done, shouldn't it it done?

What makes it different?I have a right to freedom of speech, but I do not have the right to a free (government-provided) radio station or printing press.

I have a right to freedom of religion, but I do not have a right to a free (government-provided) church building.

I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not have a right to a free (government-provided) rifle.

I have a right to be as healthy as I want, but I do not have a right to free (government-provided) medical care.

Guinastasia
10-14-2007, 08:32 PM
And in other nations you don't have a right to own a gun, but you do have a right to health insurance. What then?

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 08:33 PM
And in other nations you don't have a right to own a gun, but you do have a right to health insurance. What then?What then? I'll stay away from those countries. That's what. :p

Guinastasia
10-14-2007, 08:35 PM
What then? I'll stay away from those countries. That's what. :p

And there you go! That's another right of your's.

:D

Revenant Threshold
10-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Both, please. But only in America.

amarone
10-14-2007, 08:55 PM
I favor both UHC and gun control, but as only the former is realistically achievable in the US in my lifetime, and benefits more people, I'd favor a candidate for UHC.

A.R. Cane
10-14-2007, 09:06 PM
[QUOTE=
I have a right to be as healthy as I want, but I do not have a right to free (government-provided) medical care.[/QUOTE]

Utter friggin' nonsense. If you were just half as clever as you seem to think, then maybe you would be able to discern the difference between "free" health care and universal coverage, available to all.
It's not "government provided" health care and it's not "free", it simple means that all share the cost and all have access. There would still be 'for profit' providers and insurers, there would still be market competition and there would still be consumer choice. At least find out some details before you decide to condemn an idea.

Khampelf
10-14-2007, 09:21 PM
Utter friggin' nonsense. If you were just half as clever as you seem to think, then maybe you would be able to discern the difference between "free" health care and universal coverage, available to all.
It's not "government provided" health care and it's not "free", it simple means that all share the cost and all have access. There would still be 'for profit' providers and insurers, there would still be market competition and there would still be consumer choice. At least find out some details before you decide to condemn an idea.

Not nonsense. Perhaps Crafter_Man should have said Government mandated health care. If this 'share the cost' 'all access' idea is so great, why aren't private companies already doing it? As it is, the Government mandates that you cannot be turned away from emergency rooms, with the cost borne by taxpayers and health insurance ratepayers. Why not expand this to cover all health care? Because it's a bad idea that no taxpayer or ratepayer is going to do voluntarily, only through extortive taxes and threat of incarceration for non-compliance.

I'll vote for the Republican, to keep Democrats from making me pay for other's health care at gunpoint.

Republicans are strong on 2nd Amendment rights in case it becomes necessary to go out and shoot Democrats. It happened in the 1860s, and could happen again.
--P.J. O'Rourke said it first.

Weirddave
10-14-2007, 09:31 PM
In this scenario I'd vote for the Republican, no question at all. RTKBA is a sacred right , UHC is a disaster that many are attempting to force down our throats. It's an easy choice, I can't imagine anyone choosing otherwise.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 09:33 PM
Utter friggin' nonsense. If you were just half as clever as you seem to think, then maybe you would be able to discern the difference between "free" health care and universal coverage, available to all.
It's not "government provided" health care and it's not "free", it simple means that all share the cost and all have access. There would still be 'for profit' providers and insurers, there would still be market competition and there would still be consumer choice. At least find out some details before you decide to condemn an idea.The problem with government-run health care is that it used the police power of government to force people like me to pay the health care bills of others. What right does the government have to take my property at gunpoint and give it to someone else for their own benefit? Sounds like socialism to me. I hate socialism. Socialism sucks.

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 09:34 PM
I heistate to play Junior Modman, but I was just asking opinions; not looking for debates (as there are current threads in GD).

I wonder if I should have asked the OP differently? For example, 'If you are pro-gun control, would you drop that part of your platform in order to get UHC?' Or: 'If you are against UHC, would you drop your opposition in order to guarantee gun rights?'

Blalron
10-14-2007, 09:38 PM
I'll vote for the Republican, to keep Democrats from making me pay for other's health care at gunpoint.

All taxation is at gunpoint. But what makes healthcare such a special thing that it is henious for the government to run it? After all, we already take for granted that children 6-18 get free government funded education. We all get free highways and roads. We pay for an extremly beefed up military (in comparison with the rest of the world, our per capita military spending is through the roof). What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 09:40 PM
What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?
You can't drive on sick people, or drop them on cities. Oh, wait...

Bobotheoptimist
10-14-2007, 09:42 PM
What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?Someone like George W. Bush appointing the head of the department using those tax dollars and setting policy on how to help sick people.

Khampelf
10-14-2007, 09:54 PM
All taxation is at gunpoint. But what makes healthcare such a special thing that it is henious for the government to run it? After all, we already take for granted that children 6-18 get free government funded education. We all get free highways and roads. We pay for an extremly beefed up military (in comparison with the rest of the world, our per capita military spending is through the roof). What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?

It's goes way beyond the mandate of the constitution. Yes, so much has, but at some point I say 'no more'.

How about 'All employment shall be overseen by the Federal government'
What's so bad about helping poor people find jobs?

How about 'All housing shall be overseen by the federal government'
What's so bad about helping poor people find housing?


Sorry, Johnny L.A. , to sum up and say no more, I wouldn't trade the 2nd Amendment for UHC.

Chefguy
10-14-2007, 10:08 PM
I'm continually bemused by "fiscal conservatives" who oppose universal health care as a waste of tax dollars. What do these folks think happens when those who can't afford health care when younger end up having chronic problems later on? That's right, since we don't marginalize our citizens, they become giant burdens to the taxpayer in the form of medicare and other social care programs. Perhaps preventive care when younger would forestall a lot of the diabetes, emphyzema, heart disease, etc. until much later, and allow our older folk to enjoy later life instead of suffering through it. But the long view has never been a strong suit of the right.

racer72
10-14-2007, 10:12 PM
Easy choice for me, I would never vote Republican.

We all get free highways and roads.Where are these "free" roads that you speak of. 95 cents per gallon of gasoline I purchase pays for roads. I pay an addditional $310 a year as part of my property taxes to pay for roads. About half of the fee to license my vehicles goes to roads. Part of the sales tax I pay when I buy stuff goes to roads. I would hardly call that free.

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2007, 10:18 PM
I'm continually bemused by "fiscal conservatives" who oppose universal health care as a waste of tax dollars.

That's not the argument. That has never been the argument. The argument is that government cannot administer things as well as the private sector. In most cases that is in fact the case, but for health care something went screwy. I do not believe that government can administer health care efficiently, but I do believe that they can provide an adequate amount of care at a lower price than our current mess. It's a trade-off. Quality of care will probably drop a measurable amount, but it will be more available. I can live with that.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 10:32 PM
since we don't marginalize our citizens, they become giant burdens to the taxpayer in the form of medicare and other social care programs.Then we should do away with Medicaid and Medicare.

Call me crazy, but I would much rather live in a free country where I might starve, become homeless, or die without medical care than live in a socialistic country where all my needs are taken care of courtesy of government-sponsored theft.

This country was based on freedom - freedom from government. Just as each person should be responsible for their own food, clothing, and housing, each should be responsible for their own health care. I understand taxation for general needs (e.g. the building of roads), but IMO it is immoral to use the police power of government to force people - at gunpoint - to give their property to someone else for their own, specific needs.

Plan B
10-14-2007, 10:36 PM
The distinction isn't that clear to me. I think of RTKBA as preventive health care.

Czarcasm
10-14-2007, 10:43 PM
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

Please don't shoot me-I can't afford medical insurance.

carnivorousplant
10-14-2007, 10:45 PM
See what happens when we digress from the OP?
I'm outta here. :)

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 10:56 PM
What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?Everything.

If you're sick, and you can't afford to go to the doctor, you have options:

1. Family.
2. Charity.
3. Church.

Now I know what you're thinking. "Charity? Church? Family? Yea, right. What if they can't handle all the needs of the sick?" Well here's what you're forgetting: if people weren't taxed for this stuff to begin with, people would have more money to give to charities and churches. Besides, we are a very generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people will help.

But... when it comes down to it, it's ultimately an question of freedom. You can have a free country or a socialistic country, but not both.

Larry Borgia
10-14-2007, 11:00 PM
Why do we have to have one without the other? I support the right to bear arms. I also think our health care system needs reforming. Why are those positions incompatible?

Der Trihs
10-14-2007, 11:06 PM
I'm continually bemused by "fiscal conservatives" who oppose universal health care as a waste of tax dollars. What do these folks think happens when those who can't afford health care when younger end up having chronic problems later on? That's right, since we don't marginalize our citizens, they become giant burdens to the taxpayer in the form of medicare and other social care programs. I expect that what most of them would do to "solve" such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren't rich die; that's how these people think.

Conservativism is simply a polite term for greed and malice. Every time some random person dies because they can't afford medical care, that's a victory for the Republicans; they are the party of evil, pure and simple. They represent everything that is bad in America, and nothing that is good. I would never vote for one.

As for gun rights, those are just a distraction. they are the most irrelevant of rights, because if it comes down to violence the government can crush you like an insect any time it wants, guns or not. People are encouraged to get excited about guns so they won't get excited about something that might inconvenience the powerful.

Der Trihs
10-14-2007, 11:08 PM
Besides, we are a very generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people will help.Garbage. America is one of the least generous countries on Earth. We are full of people who think the weak and helpess deserve suffering and death.

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 11:11 PM
I want freedom too. Freedom from the possibility of being ruined just because I get in a car wreck or something. Freedom to change jobs without having to have no health coverage while I'm waiting for the new poicy to kick in. Freedom to get health coverage if I happen to have a pre-existing condition.
I understand taxation for general needs (e.g. the building of roads), but IMO it is immoral to use the police power of government to force people - at gunpoint - to give their property to someone else for their own, specific needs.
You're already being taxed 'at gunpoint'. Why have a police department? People should take the law into their own hands. If they catch the bad guy, good for them. If they don't, then it's their own look out. Why should we have fire departments? It's not my house that's burning! I'll never use 99% of the roads in this country. Why should I have to pay for them, since I have no specific need for them?

Health care does serve the general needs of the country, as I pointed out in the other thread before this one went off track. Preventative health care reduceds costs down the line. That's a good thing. It keeps people productive longer. Productive workers make productive companies. Productive companies tend to pay more than unproductive ones, so people have more money to spend and the government has more money to support the needs of the People. Removing the burden of paying for health care from companies makes them more competitive, so more Americans can have jobs that might otherwise go overseas. And they'll spend their money here. Universal coverage is good for the country.

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2007, 11:11 PM
I expect that what most of them would do to "solve" such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren't rich die; that's how these people think.

Conservativism is simply a polite term for greed and malice. Every time some random person dies because they can't afford medical care, that's a victory for the Republicans; they are the party of evil, pure and simple. They represent everything that is bad in America, and nothing that is good. I would never vote for one.

As for gun rights, those are just a distraction. they are the most irrelevant of rights, because if it comes down to violence the government can crush you like an insect any time it wants, guns or not. People are encouraged to get excited about guns so they won't get excited about something that might inconvenience the powerful.

I suppose that somewhere in this screed there is a fact, but I am unable to identify it through all the bile, hatred, and pointless rhetoric.

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 11:13 PM
Why do we have to have one without the other? I support the right to bear arms. I also think our health care system needs reforming. Why are those positions incompatible?
Heh. A little late for the OP, given the direction this thread has taken. What I was getting at was that I think it's better for the Democrats to back off gun control if it gets them more votes to pass UHC. (Or for the Republicans to do the opposite, if that's what you believe.) At this stage though, all bets are off.

Ravenman
10-14-2007, 11:16 PM
I submit to you that Europe is free. In some ways, not so much (eg, guns) but in other ways, more free (eg, I can walk down the street in London drinking a beer). But free nonetheless.

It still tinkers with my head a little bit that the Framers in drafting the Constitution went so far as to determine that delivery of mail was a vital function of the Federal government. I can only wonder if the Framers were here, today, informed by the advances in our economy and technology, whether they'd choose to designate the delivery of health care instead of delivery of mail as being an issue of Constitutional importance. My uninformed guess is that they would not see it as an issue of freedom, but an issue of making the country work smoothly.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 11:16 PM
I expect that what most of them would do to "solve" such problems is eliminate medicare and everything else resembling a social safety net. Like Crafter_Man wants, let the sick who aren't rich die; that's how these people think.#1 People dying because they can't afford health care is horrible and abhorrent.

#2 The government robbing Peter to pay Paul is horrible and abhorrent.

We can agree that both of the above are horrible and abhorrent. But they are different. #1 is the result of unfortunate circumstances; it is not the direct result of people committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others. By contrast, #2 is the result of direct criminal behavior (theft of property) and the infringement of rights.

So which is the lesser of two evils? My vote is #1.

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 11:18 PM
It's NOT theft of property! You're simply paying for things from which you receive benefits.

Crafter_Man
10-14-2007, 11:31 PM
It's NOT theft of property! You're simply paying for things from which you receive benefits.If that's true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can't I make direct payments to the services I'm using?

The basic issue here is one of liberty vs. government intrusion into your life. How much liberty do you want? How much government intrusion do you want? You can't have both... the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.

Most people today want a small amount of freedom along and a healthy dose of government intrusion. I am an oddball; I want more liberty and less government. I would rather have more liberty - along with the increasing crime, sickness, and homelessness that might accompany it - than less liberty and less crime, sickness, and homelessness.

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 11:38 PM
If that's true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can't I make direct payments to the services I'm using?
Do you pay a toll every time you get on a road? And pay another toll when you make a turn? Would you pay the fire department directly? ('You have to pay before we'll put the fire out.' 'But my credit cards are inside!')

I think you need to define 'liberty' and 'freedom'. You keep saying those words, but what is it specifically that you want?

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2007, 11:48 PM
Do you pay a toll every time you get on a road? And pay another toll when you make a turn? Would you pay the fire department directly? ('You have to pay before we'll put the fire out.' 'But my credit cards are inside!')

As a matter of fact, if you consider balance of payments, that's exactly what you do. I wouldn't care to do everything under a pay-as-you-go model, but if that's what he wants I don't necessarily take issue with that.

I think you need to define 'liberty' and 'freedom'. You keep saying those words, but what is it specifically that you want?

I think he has quite capably expressed what he wants. Extreme? Sure. But not all that unusual depending upon region. It's not surprising that some people would find it batshit crazy, because it is the total antithesis of what people perceive to be a modern, liberal society.

Different strokes for different folks, know what I mean?

Johnny L.A.
10-14-2007, 11:55 PM
As a matter of fact, if you consider balance of payments, that's exactly what you do.
So how is health care any different? Why single it out if it all balances anyway? It makes more sense to pay to a general fund that to have everyone pay individually to a thousand things.
I think he has quite capably expressed what he wants.
I don't think so. Liberty to do what? What is being infringed upon?

Johnny L.A.
10-15-2007, 12:01 AM
And on that note, time to pack it in for the night. If I'm not back tomorrow night, then it will probably be Friday.

Airman Doors, USAF
10-15-2007, 12:07 AM
So how is health care any different? Why single it out if it all balances anyway? It makes more sense to pay to a general fund that to have everyone pay individually to a thousand things.

Because we pay whether we use it or not. Imagine that you bought my lunch for 5 years in anticipation of you being short one day so I can pay you back, and that day never comes. Of course I'll thank you for the fine meals, but that still leaves you out of a boatload of money that was yours.

That's the objection. Call it selfish if you want, but in the same way that you would tell me to go to hell if I demanded to drive your MGB, the money we earn is ours and the government should take as little of it as possible. Crafter_Man simply doesn't want to subsidize others, or be subsidized by others, at least to the minimum extent possible. The government takes your money and while it may return some of it to you in services they are still subsidizing others.

Perhaps Crafter_Man has the ability to live like that. Few people do. But that's the rub, and it's a reasonable one.

I don't think so. Liberty to do what? What is being infringed upon?

Your right to spend your money on what you see fit to spend it on, rather than what the government spends it on on your behalf.

DanBlather
10-15-2007, 12:22 AM
In this scenario I'd vote for the Republican, no question at all. RTKBA is a sacred right Like Jesus said: "Let those among you who are without sin loose the first volley" and "blessed are the armed".

You guys scare me.

Der Trihs
10-15-2007, 01:43 AM
#1 People dying because they can't afford health care is horrible and abhorrent.

#2 The government robbing Peter to pay Paul is horrible and abhorrent.

We can agree that both of the above are horrible and abhorrent. But they are different. #1 is the result of unfortunate circumstances; it is not the direct result of people committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others. By contrast, #2 is the result of direct criminal behavior (theft of property) and the infringement of rights.

So which is the lesser of two evils? My vote is #1.That's because like the typical libertarian, you have no problem at all with the death of millions if you can save a few dollars. And you are willing to spend far more than you save oppressing and killing the lower classes in order to keep them from demanding that you pay your fair share instead of feeding off of them. You libertarians are not interested in any rights but property rights, because to you the lives and suffering of others mean nothing.

If that's true, why do I need the government as a middle man? Why can't I make direct payments to the services I'm using?Because society would fall apart, and you'd be driven into poverty the first time you were faced with a major expense you must pay and can't, like medical care after an accident. Paying for every last little service individually would not only suck up far more time, but cost far more; ever hear of economies of scale ?

Eliminate the government services you hate so much, and you end up with Iraq or some other failed state.

The basic issue here is one of liberty vs. government intrusion into your life. How much liberty do you want? How much government intrusion do you want? You can't have both... the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.That the standard libertarian delusion, that government is the enemy of liberty, and the only one.

The only reason you have liberty at all is the government. Without it, you are at the mercy of anyone with more money or numbers or brutality than you. You aren't arguing for liberty; you are arguing for the destruction of freedom and the imposition of a plutocracy or warlordism, whether you intend to or not.

How is being forced to do degrading or dangerous things by someone with money because the alternative is starvation or otherwise dying due to a lack of money liberty ? How is having your life ruined by anyone with more money or power than you liberty ? How is being worked to eath liberty ? How is having some corporation determine everything you do and wear and say ( whcih is what they do when they can get away with it) liberty ? You and those like you are the enemies of liberty, not it's champions.

Crafter_Man[/b] simply doesn't want to subsidize others, or be subsidized by others, at least to the minimum extent possible. The government takes your money and while it may return some of it to you in services they are still subsidizing others.No, he's being heavily subsidized, or he wouldn't have that money, nor would that money have the value it does. Just by being raised in and living in this society, he benefits. What he wants is to be a parasite.

ITR champion
10-15-2007, 08:39 AM
Broadly speaking, Republicans support the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms and Democrats do not; Democrats favour Universal Health Coverage and Republicans do not.

So let's say you have two candidates: The Republican will work hard to guarantee that your RTKBA will not be infringed, but has stated that s/he absolutely will not support a 'Socialist' agenda by working toward UHC; and the Democrat will strive to ban certain types of firearms, but will do everything possible to secure UHC.

What's more important to you?
I'd support the Democrat. First of all, the Democrat supports universal health care, which would save a lot of innocent lives. Secondly, the Democrat supports gun control, which also saves a lot of innocent lives. It's a pretty easy choice, assuming that you want innocent people to live out their natural life spans.

Chefguy
10-15-2007, 11:03 AM
Everything.

If you're sick, and you can't afford to go to the doctor, you have options:

1. Family.
2. Charity.
3. Church.

Now I know what you're thinking. "Charity? Church? Family? Yea, right. What if they can't handle all the needs of the sick?" Well here's what you're forgetting: if people weren't taxed for this stuff to begin with, people would have more money to give to charities and churches. Besides, we are a very generous culture, more so than any other culture on earth. If charities become overloaded, people will help.

But... when it comes down to it, it's ultimately an question of freedom. You can have a free country or a socialistic country, but not both.

And you apparently have some notion that charities and churches get their funding by picking handsful of cash off the money trees out back? While donations make up a portion of operating capital, food and other care programs are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. And in the Republican vision of corporate fascist Amerika, churches would also be funded by the government.

Honesty
10-15-2007, 01:13 PM
Then we should do away with Medicaid and Medicare.

Call me crazy, but I would much rather live in a free country where I might starve, become homeless, or die without medical care than live in a socialistic country where all my needs are taken care of courtesy of government-sponsored theft.


Like Somalia?

- Honesty

mnemosyne
10-15-2007, 01:29 PM
I am really sorry I caused this derailment (the first couple of answers were sufficient for me to begin to see where the POV comes from) but I have learned a lot!

Myself, while I recognize that there are serious problems in the health system that we have, I am content paying taxes in return for the guarantee (such as it is) that I can see a doctor, receive treatment, and obtain medicine without going bankrupt (same goes for education, infrastructure, etc). Of course, we do have private insurance to cover the costs of whatever the government won't pay for, but still.... I shudder to think at where my family would be if we had had to pay the 25000+$/year for my sister's medicines (for a manageable, non-life-threatening but chronic disease).

I sometimes wonder if the people most vehemently against UHC are healthy people, from healthy families? Either that, or well-off enough to pay for private insurance, at least.

As I said, I'm not a great debater, so I won't really do that, but I have never really taken the time to think about this from the other side, and this has prompted me to do so. I'll certainly keep reading this thread, I'm learning a lot!

Pushkin
10-15-2007, 01:35 PM
Because we pay whether we use it or not. Imagine that you bought my lunch for 5 years in anticipation of you being short one day so I can pay you back, and that day never comes. Of course I'll thank you for the fine meals, but that still leaves you out of a boatload of money that was yours

Crafter_Man lays out his views pretty clearly and demands little to no taxes and little to no government "intervention" in his life.

But I'm not 100% clear on what everyone else who's against UHC means by not wanting their taxes to subsidise others' lives. Is it because a tax hike is anticipated? If not, is it the thoughts of paying for something that will never benefit them directly? Isn't that the same for most taxes, all the roads you'll never drive on, the fires that burn someone else's house down? :confused:

Chefguy
10-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Crafter_Man lays out his views pretty clearly and demands little to no taxes and little to no government "intervention" in his life.

But I'm not 100% clear on what everyone else who's against UHC means by not wanting their taxes to subsidise others' lives. Is it because a tax hike is anticipated? If not, is it the thoughts of paying for something that will never benefit them directly? Isn't that the same for most taxes, all the roads you'll never drive on, the fires that burn someone else's house down? :confused:

Of course it is; it's the cost of living in a coherent society instead of in chaos. I don't have children in school, but I pay my school taxes so we (hopefully) don't end up with a nation full of slack-jawed morons. I would venture to say there has never been an administration, left or right, that has actually reduced spending, Clinton's budget surplus notwithstanding. The current administration's spending has far outstripped anything that has gone before and governent is far larger than ever before. But how, you may ask, is this possible without tax hikes? Simple: increase the debt load and mortgage our childrens' futures.

I've never understood how 'borrow and spend' is a better method than 'tax and spend'. As the government is less and less able to administrate because of personnel cuts and deregulation, when our lenders eventually call their loans, corporate America will eventually take over all functions. Does anyone really think they will be less rapacious than the fed, or have your interests as a citizen at heart?

My state is full of anti-tax whiners like Crafter Man, despite the fact that Alaska has the second-lowest tax burden of any state in the union. They don't want to have to pay for anything whatsoever, but bitch mightily when they are inconvenienced in the slightest. The police aren't arresting the criminals! Someone's house burned to the ground! Schools aren't teaching! Too many potholes! Where are the snowplows? Friggin' homeless people! But they routinely vote down bond issues for these very services because the debt load will result in a hike in local taxation.

Mosier
10-15-2007, 05:05 PM
I've never understood how 'borrow and spend' is a better method than 'tax and spend'. As the government is less and less able to administrate because of personnel cuts and deregulation, when our lenders eventually call their loans, corporate America will eventually take over all functions. Does anyone really think they will be less rapacious than the fed, or have your interests as a citizen at heart?

How does one go about "calling" a loan, anyway? I think you might be mistaken on how debt works.

Borrowing and taxing are both legitimate ways for the government to raise revenue. Too much taxes, and you stifle economic growth. Too much borrowing, and you don't have enough money left over after paying interest to function.

That's why successful governments do both. People who own American Government debt are investing in government, the same as people who own Microsoft stock are investing in Microsoft. Lots of investment in the government is a good thing, as long as the size of the economy grows with the size of the debt.

Guinastasia
10-15-2007, 07:43 PM
I would say that health care is much more of a necessity than guns are. You aren't going to die without a gun, but you're much, much more likely to die without health care.

(And I want it noted, for the record, I'm NOT anti-guns. I'm only Anti-Stupid-People-With-Guns. The kind you wouldn't even trust with a pastry gun. THAT is what scares me.)

Magiver
10-15-2007, 08:17 PM
It's NOT theft of property! You're simply paying for things from which you receive benefits. Uh hu. Next time you buy a car please double the price and pay me half. Just call me your uncle and we'll both be happy.

Johnny L.A.
10-15-2007, 08:24 PM
Uh hu. Next time you buy a car please double the price and pay me half. Just call me your uncle and we'll both be happy.
And what benefit do I get from you? I can name many that sales taxes pay for.

Magiver
10-15-2007, 08:24 PM
Come to England, where we have full gun control and National Health Care for all! :cool: You lost the ability to defend yourself and you're paying extra for National Health Rationing. No thanks.

National Health Care is a myth.

Magiver
10-15-2007, 08:29 PM
And what benefit do I get from you? I can name many that sales taxes pay for. I can delay your diognostic visit and then delay the treatment until you die. In fact, I"m prepared to put that in writing. But before you take that final breath you can look up in the sky and watch Al Gore and Dick Chaney flying to India where they get the treatment you need, I currently have, and only they will be able to afford.

Magiver
10-15-2007, 09:02 PM
I suspect it could be argued that it is not specified in the US Constitution, as one could argue that the right to own a firearm is.
On the other hand, one could argue that an enlightened society should provide health care for it's citizens. "Right" vs. "right", I suppose.
But we digress from the OP. :) What if the unenlightened society already provided better health care to the poor than the enlightened society does to the masses?

Lobohan
10-15-2007, 09:11 PM
You lost the ability to defend yourself and you're paying extra for National Health Rationing. No thanks.

National Health Care is a myth.

Cite please.

Kimstu
10-15-2007, 10:11 PM
What if the unenlightened society already provided better health care to the poor than the enlightened society does to the masses?

Then that's just ducky for the poor in the "unenlightened" society, but not so good for the "masses" in the same society who are not poor enough for means-tested tax-funded health care, but too poor to afford (or too sick to obtain) privately purchased health care and/or health insurance.

I think it's great that the US has (some) tax-funded health care facilities for the poor. I think it's stupid that the US non-poor have to put up with such a hodgepodge of incompatible healthcare coverage systems, unobtainable healthcare coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, loss of health insurance upon losing employment, etc. etc. etc. It's a huge barrel of red tape that an intelligent single-payer plan would make much simpler and more convenient.

Fortunately, most of the rest of the US population is beginning to come around to this point of view. The opposition has few arguments to offer that are significantly more coherent than cries of "But socialism is eeeeeevil! Socialized medicine is no good!"

Citizens of countries with UHC systems are on average far more satisfied with their system than the average US taxpayer is with our own system, and US taxpayers are starting to ask "If they can implement a satisfactory cradle-to-grave universal health insurance system without all the inefficiency and failures that our own system suffers from, why can't we?"

Even if the quality or availability of care in countries with UHC systems is slightly worse than it is for people with good insurance in the current US system---and I have not found that health services in, e.g., Germany or the Netherlands or New Zealand are medically inferior to ours in any significant way---the average uninsured American would prefer slightly inferior health care to no health care at all, or to bankruptcy from health care costs.

And as the pool of uninsured Americans (and the families and friends who worry about them) steadily grows, that preference will eventually make itself felt in legislation for UHC.

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 12:56 AM
"I have a right to freedom of speech, but I do not have the right to a free (government-provided) radio station or printing press." - Unless you are a democrat then you have the "right" to NPR

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 01:15 AM
Perhaps I am confused about this whole thing because I worked hard, went to school, and earned a good job that provides health care at a fair cost to me. But this wasn't always the case. When I was younger (19) and just out of high school, I became a dad to an amazing little girl that I am humbled to have as a daughter. She is now 15 and a great Kid. (Done bragging now) At the time of her birth I did not have a "pot to pee in" After applying to every possible "government program" my total out of pocket expense to have her was $15 dollars! The thought of not being able to provide for my Childs needs (or my own) without government assistance, quite frankly scared the crap out of me! So I stopped screwing around with my life, went to school, studied and worked very hard, earned a good paying job, lived below my income (while all my friends were driving new cars I was driving a 1971 dodge power wagon pickup truck and NOT making a $300 a month car payment.) and prepared for the future. Who amongst us in this post did not have the same opportunity (at least those of us in the USA) to make the same choices. By the way, I came from a low/middle class family in an area of NJ that is not the nicest place to live. And if you now find yourself in a tight spot, why should the rest of the citizens of this country be punished (by higher taxes to support your health care) for decisions. Granted, there are exceptions, devastation illness with bills in the millions of dollars etc. And I do believe that the government should be there to help in those extreme cases, but not every day, run of the mill health care. That is OUR responsibility.

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 01:20 AM
As for Guns, I use the money I save on high health care bills to buy as many as possible!

Pushkin
10-17-2007, 03:54 AM
And if you now find yourself in a tight spot, why should the rest of the citizens of this country be punished (by higher taxes to support your health care) for decisions

Aren't they "punished" already by those who can't afford insurance and are provided health care on the country's tab? And who mentioned higher taxes? The UK spends less per person on health care than the US and we've not had any cites yet on comparisons between those two countries and their health care.

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 10:43 AM
Aren't they "punished" already by those who can't afford insurance and are provided health care on the country's tab? And who mentioned higher taxes? The UK spends less per person on health care than the US and we've not had any cites yet on comparisons between those two countries and their health care.

I understand what you are saying; we are already punished by those who canít afford insurance. However that number is vastly less then providing health care for everyone in the country. Since we live in a society where doctors are free to charge whatever that want to charge for the service they provide, the costs would be through the roof. Or should we tell private citizens, who invested in their future by going to school, what they are "allowed" to charge and set limits on their income so it is fair to everyone? I have to go back to my orig statement, if you cant afford health care, better yourself, take responsibility for what you are responsible for, and take care of it yourself. Donít put the burden on me or my neighbors. Beside, our government has a bad track record (Rep. & Dem.) in running ANYTHING efficiently and correctly. Look at social security! I sure donít want them running something as important as my healthcare!!!
I am for less government control, not giving them more. And if we do get NHC what do we look at next? - Oh I knwÖ.Nationalized Retirement, I want to government to pay for my retirement and for the retirement of all those people who will never be able to afford it. That way it is fair to everyoneÖ.

When did ďFAIRĒ become a right? I was always taught the amount of prosperity you enjoy, is directly related to the effort you put into earning that prosperity.

Lobohan
10-17-2007, 10:54 AM
I was always taught the amount of prosperity you enjoy, is directly related to the effort you put into earning that prosperity.
Exactly. Poor people are lazy and shiftless. No one decent has ever needed help.
No one has ever lost their house do to unexpected medical bills, no one has ever been denied by their insurance forcing themselves into bankruptcy.

Really the poor and desperate only have themselves to blame. If only they'd put effort into earning prosperity.

I notice you didn't cite anything comparing the US and UK systems.




However that number is vastly less then providing health care for everyone in the country. Cite that please.


Since we live in a society where doctors are free to charge whatever that want to charge for the service they provide, the costs would be through the roof.Can a doctor charge any amount to insurance? I honestly don't know, but could a doctor charge $6k for a physical and get that money from the insurance? Or do most doctors charge what insurance companies are willing to let them have?

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 11:29 AM
Exactly. Poor people are lazy and shiftless. No one decent has ever needed help.
No one has ever lost their house do to unexpected medical bills, no one has ever been denied by their insurance forcing themselves into bankruptcy.

Really the poor and desperate only have themselves to blame. If only they'd put effort into earning prosperity.


I dont feel that that is the case at all, decent people do need help from time to time. That help should be there when it is needed but NOT as long term support. It should be provided for the term of time it would be needed to recover from the tragity. I needed it, I used it, but I got off it. Thats what it is there for.

I notice you didn't cite anything comparing the US and UK systems.

Because I donít know anything about the UK and quite honestly, donít care.
Regardless of how anyone else does it, that is not now nor has it ever been the responsibility of MY government. Healthcare is not a "right", it is not in our constitution, PERIOD!


Cite that please.
Approx - 310,000,000 - People in the USA - Projected data for October 07'

Approx 40,000,000 with out health care - However, this number includes those who would normally not purchase healthcare By CHOICE such as the teen aged workers, it also includes those already on Gov programs because the pole only reflected those without PRIVATE healthcare. So someone could have Gov assistance and still be in this pole.



Can a doctor charge any amount to insurance? I honestly don't know, but could a doctor charge $6k for a physical and get that money from the insurance? Or do most doctors charge what insurance companies are willing to let them have?


A doc can charge any amount he/she wants to. How it works is, lets say a Doc wants to charge $100 for an exam, but the insurance will only pay $50. The Doc then turns around and charges the patient the remaining balance. And He/She deserves to be paid for His/Her service.

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 11:34 AM
Besides, You and I have gotten off the debale, this is Health Care VS Gun rights. Not weather or not the US should have NHC. Guns are protected by the constitution healthcae is not, its that simple, read our constitution. We can argue weather or not is should be, but at this time it is not.

Steve MB
10-17-2007, 11:36 AM
As for gun rights, those are just a distraction. they are the most irrelevant of rights, because if it comes down to violence the government can crush you like an insect any time it wants, guns or not.
Yeah, just like the US government crushed the Iraqi insurgents years ago.... :rolleyes:

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 11:39 AM
Yeah, just like the US government crushed the Iraqi insurgents years ago.... :rolleyes:

If by our government, you are refering to our military, you are correct. They have the most awesome "war machine" on the planet. But remember, it comes down to the individual soldier. If told to turn aginst their own people, would they? No doubt, there are those who would, but I can only imagine that many of them would not. I hope that day never comes!!!

Steve MB
10-17-2007, 11:42 AM
I don't have children in school, but I pay my school taxes so we (hopefully) don't end up with a nation full of slack-jawed morons.
The government took a boatload of our money and we ended up with a nation full of slack-jawed morons anyway. So much for that plan....

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 11:46 AM
The government took a boatload of our money and we ended up with a nation full of slack-jawed morons anyway. So much for that plan....


AMEN!

redtail23
10-17-2007, 12:14 PM
A doc can charge any amount he/she wants to. How it works is, lets say a Doc wants to charge $100 for an exam, but the insurance will only pay $50. The Doc then turns around and charges the patient the remaining balance. And He/She deserves to be paid for His/Her service. No, not exactly. Back in the "good old days" of all fee-for-service insurance, it worked (more or less) like that.

However, these days, almost all insurances require the doctor to sign a contract stating that s/he will only receive the allowed amount. It can NOT be charged to the patient. The patient might pay some form of co-pay or a deductible, but that would be subtracted from the allowed amount.

So provider charges $100. Insurance allows $50. Patient has a $25 co-pay.

Patient pays $25.
Insurance pays $25.
Doc gets $50 and writes off $50.


Back to the OP. I'd vote for the Democrat, fully confident that the various gun lobbies, congress critters, and the USSC, will prevent any radical gun control laws from being implemented. Besides, if my representative is truly working for UHC, s/he won't have time to do anything about gun control.

We're currently spending MORE PER CAPITA on healthcare, and getting worse results, than any other industrialized nation because of our current idiotic system. Much of that is paid from taxes via the government for emergency and subsidized care.

I'd rather have universal coverage and spend LESS on healthcare than "freedom" and spend more. Not to mention that whole civilization thing, you know, that idea that we're all in this together, that we have a common society, that the benefits of society and civilization are the improved standard of living that we enjoy, and that the costs of said benefits are having to share those benefits around a bit. Gosh, kindergardners manage to understand this idea, why do some adults have such a problem with it?

You know, I used to have a lot more respect for Libertarians before reading their posts here on the Dope. I've got to say, guys, that you don't come across well in rational debate.

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 12:58 PM
No, not exactly. Back in the "good old days" of all fee-for-service insurance, it worked (more or less) like that.

However, these days, almost all insurances require the doctor to sign a contract stating that s/he will only receive the allowed amount. It can NOT be charged to the patient. The patient might pay some form of co-pay or a deductible, but that would be subtracted from the allowed amount.

So provider charges $100. Insurance allows $50. Patient has a $25 co-pay.

Patient pays $25.
Insurance pays $25.
Doc gets $50 and writes off $50.


Back to the OP. I'd vote for the Democrat, fully confident that the various gun lobbies, congress critters, and the USSC, will prevent any radical gun control laws from being implemented. Besides, if my representative is truly working for UHC, s/he won't have time to do anything about gun control.

We're currently spending MORE PER CAPITA on healthcare, and getting worse results, than any other industrialized nation because of our current idiotic system. Much of that is paid from taxes via the government for emergency and subsidized care.

I'd rather have universal coverage and spend LESS on healthcare than "freedom" and spend more. Not to mention that whole civilization thing, you know, that idea that we're all in this together, that we have a common society, that the benefits of society and civilization are the improved standard of living that we enjoy, and that the costs of said benefits are having to share those benefits around a bit. Gosh, kindergardners manage to understand this idea, why do some adults have such a problem with it?

You know, I used to have a lot more respect for Libertarians before reading their posts here on the Dope. I've got to say, guys, that you don't come across well in rational debate.


I am not a libertarian, I am a republican. Although I can understand from reading my posts why you would think I am. I guess the guestion is "Are you willing to give up more freedom so you can spend less on health care? I can see are. As for me, I am not willing to give up any freedom beyone what I have already had to sacrifice.

Kindergardeners also believe in the easter bunny, eventually they grow up!

"we have a common society" - This seems like a good Marxist statemrnt to me.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need. Right?
Other then living on the same "ball" and being of the same human race, what is common about us?

tomndebb
10-17-2007, 01:18 PM
"we have a common society" - This seems like a good Marxist statemrnt to me.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need. Right?
Other then living on the same "ball" and being of the same human race, what is common about us?That is pretty silly. We all live within the same geographic bordrs, sharing the same government, living uner the same laws, being defended by the same military, and paying taxes to the same government.

How (or why) you would make some off leap into Marxism based on a single phrase that is undeniably true, I have no idea.

As for your attempt to insert a statement that redtail23 had not posted and then claim Marxism, you would be better off blaming Christianity:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. :p

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 01:38 PM
I like the quote, good try. Where is that in the bible? Too bad this is an obvious act of charity NOT A COMMANDMENT or a LAW of the land. But a good try on your part none the less. What we are talking about is the forced removal of wealth from one person to give it to another. I am all for charity but not for being robbed by my government. I want them to protect me, itís not their job to provide for me. Believe it or not, I am not a wealthy guy. I could use the help myself. I have 3 kids and live paycheck to paycheck with a little savings for a rainy day. By no means am I rich.

As for common community - We donít all pay taxes, my wife works a part time job at a clothing store just so we can have a little "mad money". She gets every scent she pays out, back at the end of the year. We pay NO TAXES on her income. I thought you would get the point about all living on the same "ball" but thank you for pointing out that there are boarders on the ball as well. We donít all live under the same laws, at least not in how justice is handed out. Ask the Jina 6 people about that. And as for the government, well if you consider that many on the "uninsured" list are not even citizens of this country. I donít think that this is exactly a fair statement either. The idea of a common society is nice but the facts and the amount of self imposed division simply don't support that ideology.

If you feel sorry for a neighbor who is having trouble making ends meet, then by all means, feel free to cut them a check and help them out. Give Blood, donate to the red cross or the salvation army or whomever. Help the poor as commanded in the bible, but donít FORCE anyone to do it. If we are such a common society, then why are we not helping each other out?

kidchameleon
10-17-2007, 02:01 PM
Conservativism is simply a polite term for greed and malice. Every time some random person dies because they can't afford medical care, that's a victory for the Republicans; they are the party of evil, pure and simple.

Oh, I'll play.

Liberalism is simply a polite term for sloth and gluttony. Everytime the individual is dragged down closer to the lowest common denominator; that's a victory for the Democrats; the party of mandated equality; pure and simple.

Chefguy
10-17-2007, 02:06 PM
The government took a boatload of our money and we ended up with a nation full of slack-jawed morons anyway. So much for that plan....

Can't speak for previous morons, but I received a first-class education at a public school in - gasp! - Alaska. Present and future morons are victims of the "no child's behind left" program of the past seven years, which has reduced public schools to trying to cram test material into the little brains with little thought to actually educating them. But at least a bureaucracy was created to administer the failed program, so we have that going for us. Or is that not what you are alluding to?

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 02:15 PM
Oh, I'll play.

Democrats; the party of mandated equality; pure and simple.

I could not agree more!

buttonjockey308
10-17-2007, 02:22 PM
Frankly, I'm vexed as to why this is an issue at all...

Regarding Healthcare;

The first thing to enact is tort reform, followed closely by a severe tightening of the noose around the neck of the insurance industry and finally set national standards for physicians.

After you stop greedy patients from suing every time hair is pulled out with a band-aid, that will reduce the costs of malpractice insurance, (awards for which ought to be capped on actuarial tables anyway) which will reduce the cost of doing business for many providers and bring the cost of healthcare back into manageable territory. Then, you can begin to set standards for physicians that are static nationwide, (partially) fund physician/medical education (so we have more doctors and nurses, that are in it for the calling rather than the cash).

This will level the playing field, allowing more employers to afford their OWN healthcare for their employees, (also allowing self-employed and unemployed to afford at least a modicum of healthcare) and forcing insurance companies to play ball with the state and local governments with regard to competition.

Complete nationalized healthcare will be a giant suckhole of money and bodies.
BAD idea.


As for guns;

I will give up nothing in this regard. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. Gun control does not work as it is now, remove further the ability for the public to protect itself from ANY onslaught, and you will truly have a society of victims.

As disgusting as I find both parties, I would vote Republican in this instance (and pretty much this instance alone, I'm an independent, donchaknow)

Voyager
10-17-2007, 02:29 PM
I am not a libertarian, I am a republican. Although I can understand from reading my posts why you would think I am. I guess the guestion is "Are you willing to give up more freedom so you can spend less on health care? I can see are. As for me, I am not willing to give up any freedom beyone what I have already had to sacrifice.

Is this the same freedom I'm already giving up as my tax money gets used to kill kids in Iraq? Or to hire mercenaries to kill kids? But I suppose you oppose the right of kids to be sick without decent medical care - as your hero said, there is always the emergency room.

BTW, I don't see a lot of Democrats proposing to ban guns, and the right to own them is not absolute in any case. I do see Republicans against UHC, though.

Is there some place we can set up a Libertarian paradise, and ship all these people off to it? I'd pay good money in support of that. We'd need to make sure there are plenty of guns there, so they'd be happy. Then we can televise what happens - would get great ratings!

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 02:32 PM
Buttonjockey.

I want to say, DUH! to myself! :smack: Very well said!! I agree.

tomndebb
10-17-2007, 02:34 PM
I like the quote, good try. Where is that in the bible? Too bad this is an obvious act of charity NOT A COMMANDMENT or a LAW of the land. But a good try on your part none the less. What we are talking about is the forced removal of wealth from one person to give it to another. I am all for charity but not for being robbed by my government. I want them to protect me, itís not their job to provide for me. Believe it or not, I am not a wealthy guy. I could use the help myself. I have 3 kids and live paycheck to paycheck with a little savings for a rainy day. By no means am I rich.

As for common community - We donít all pay taxes, my wife works a part time job at a clothing store just so we can have a little "mad money". She gets every scent she pays out, back at the end of the year. We pay NO TAXES on her income. I thought you would get the point about all living on the same "ball" but thank you for pointing out that there are boarders on the ball as well. We donít all live under the same laws, at least not in how justice is handed out. Ask the Jina 6 people about that. And as for the government, well if you consider that many on the "uninsured" list are not even citizens of this country. I donít think that this is exactly a fair statement either. The idea of a common society is nice but the facts and the amount of self imposed division simply don't support that ideology.

If you feel sorry for a neighbor who is having trouble making ends meet, then by all means, feel free to cut them a check and help them out. Give Blood, donate to the red cross or the salvation army or whomever. Help the poor as commanded in the bible, but donít FORCE anyone to do it. If we are such a common society, then why are we not helping each other out?This entire disjointed rant was provoked by one comment pointing out that your "Marxism" interjection was baseless?

Less caffeine before you post again, please.

(Are you serious that you do not recognize that quote from the New Testament? I'd have thought by now, that anyone who threw around wild and inappropriate accusations of Marxism would have had those verses thrown back in their face by now.)

IWasNeverHere
10-17-2007, 03:13 PM
(Are you serious that you do not recognize that quote from the New Testament? I'd have thought by now, that anyone who threw around wild and inappropriate accusations of Marxism would have had those verses thrown back in their face by now.)[/QUOTE]


Perhaps you are a trend setter? I will let you know if this begins to occur more in my life. :)


I really donít recognize it the quote, do you know where it as? As for the wild and inappropriate accusations, I feel strongly that we are a nation founded on individualism, coming together to achieve a common goal in times of crisis. But largely founded on the rights of the individual, not the common good. That is Marxist.

Magiver
10-17-2007, 10:41 PM
Citizens of countries with UHC systems are on average far more satisfied with their system than the average US taxpayer is with our own system, and US taxpayers are starting to ask "If they can implement a satisfactory cradle-to-grave universal health insurance system without all the inefficiency and failures that our own system suffers from, why can't we?" Where did you get this from? Canadian health care is not viewed well in Canada.

In a recent poll (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gratzer200511280818.asp), more than 80 percent of Canadians rate the system ďin crisis.Ē People wait for practically any diagnostic test, surgical procedure, or specialist consult.

If you missed this on the nightly news there is a town in Canada that has a lottery every year where 50 people win a family doctor.

The doctorsí shortage is so severe that, in Norwood, Ont., winning the town lottery isnít a ticket to material wealth. With just one family doctor to service the entire town, the physician takes only 50 new patients a year. As a result, the town holds an annual lottery with the 50 winners getting an appointment with him.
This is not a cherry picked incident:

The plight of Norwood is not unusual. According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1.2 million Canadians donít have a family doctor and are looking for one.

Even if the quality or availability of care in countries with UHC systems is slightly worse than it is for people with good insurance in the current US system---and I have not found that health services in, e.g., Germany or the Netherlands or New Zealand are medically inferior to ours in any significant way---the average uninsured American would prefer slightly inferior health care to no health care at all, or to bankruptcy from health care costs. There is no "slightly worse" if there is a long waiting list for diagnosis and treatment. A staff infection will kill you in days. Something as routine as a heart bypass in the United States is a major deal in Canada. The average wait is significant:

Alberta's median waits for heart bypass surgery were 20 days -- faster than British Columbia's 24-day wait but slower than New Brunswick's eight-day wait.

Other delays taken from an Alberta government site (http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=43842):

A new report from the institute shows Albertans faced a median wait of 167 days for a knee replacement and 126 days for hip replacement surgery -- middle-of-the-road waiting times compared to other provinces.

Surgical waiting times have been the subject of heated debate since last June, when a Supreme Court of Canada decision ruled that medical delays violate the Quebec charter of rights.

Last December, provincial health ministers set waiting time benchmarks for five procedures, for example, striving to provide cardiac surgery within 26 weeks.
Their GOAL is 26 WEEKS!!!!! One of my co-workers almost lost her Canadian father in-law because they delayed his bypass surgery and he had 2 heart attacks in the hospital. He waited weeks (after he was hospitalized) for something that is routine and easy to schedule in the United States.

I had kidney stones 2 years ago. I went to the closest emergency room which immediately set me up with a morphine drip. Within an hour I had an X-ray and an MRI (Ct-scan?). I saw my family doctor twice and a Urologist twice. The 2nd visit I was givin the choice of treatment and I was in surgery in 3 hrs. It all happened in 2 weeks. done.

In England they get excited if they can cobble enough shillings together to co-op a lithotripter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2858851.stm).

Delays in health care are not a solution, they're a problem. Charging extra for health rationing is not acceptable.

jsgoddess
10-17-2007, 10:52 PM
In a recent poll (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gratzer200511280818.asp), more than 80 percent of Canadians rate the system ďin crisis.Ē People wait for practically any diagnostic test, surgical procedure, or specialist consult.

I don't see a cite at your cite for this "recent poll."

Ravenman
10-17-2007, 11:31 PM
The doctorsí shortage is so severe that, in Norwood, Ont., winning the town lottery isnít a ticket to material wealth. With just one family doctor to service the entire town, the physician takes only 50 new patients a year. One doctor in a town of 1,300 is bad. How much of that do you suppose has to do with Canadian doctors leaving to move to the States where they can feed off the teet of a spendthrift medical system here in this country?
Delays in health care are not a solution, they're a problem. Charging extra for health rationing is not acceptable.I believe the US already has a health care rationing system. But instead of being based on urgency, it is based on money. If one doesn't have private insurance, basic health needs are not met. Forget waits for specialists who can perform complex heart bypasses, there have been children in this country who have suffered -- even died -- because they couldn't see a dentist. Link. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR207022702116.html)
So, a quarter of a million tax dollars spent on emergency treatment of this child could have been avoided had our government had an effective system of arranging an $80 dentist visit.

That is simply incredibly wrong. Canada may be in the unfortunate position of not having enough doctors, but here in the US we apparently have health care providers who simply prefer not to see poor people.

So, I ask those here with good health insurance plans, what are we to do with a child whose dental problems have become life-threatening because of our dysfunctinal health care system? Shall we encourage them to grow up, not be poor, and not be sick? Or maybe we should simply let them eat cake?

Pushkin
10-18-2007, 04:14 AM
Back to the OP. I'd vote for the Democrat, fully confident that the various gun lobbies, congress critters, and the USSC, will prevent any radical gun control laws from being implemented. Besides, if my representative is truly working for UHC, s/he won't have time to do anything about gun control

I wondering that about the OP, if the Republican spends his/her time defending what is an irrevocable right and the Democrat supposedly spends his/her time trying to take that away, aren't they equally wasting their time making a decision between them moot? :confused:

Magiver
10-18-2007, 08:36 PM
One doctor in a town of 1,300 is bad. How much of that do you suppose has to do with Canadian doctors leaving to move to the States where they can feed off the teet of a spendthrift medical system here in this country? Doctors like to get paid what they're worth. If they come to the US then that is what the market price is for their labor. You can vote in UHC but you can't force someone to become a doctor.

So, I ask those here with good health insurance plans, what are we to do with a child whose dental problems have become life-threatening because of our dysfunctinal health care system? Shall we encourage them to grow up, not be poor, and not be sick? Or maybe we should simply let them eat cake? Your link doesn't work and nobody in the US is denied emergency care. The current SCHIP funds cover children in poverty and near poverty. States have been returning about half of what they were allotted. That's where the problem lies, how to best utilize the money that's already available. Pouring more money into the system won't fix this. Screwing the people with good medical service is simply not necessary.

Ravenman
10-18-2007, 09:34 PM
Your link doesn't work and nobody in the US is denied emergency care. Try this. (http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2007/february/page.jsp?itemID=29673862)
The child did get emergency care, $250,000 worth. But the problem was that because only one in seven dentists in Maryland accept Medicaid, a minor medical issue caused a needless death and huge hospital bills to be footed by the public. I'm boggled how you can defend a health care system that is incapable of preventing disease at low cost to the public, but will treat avoidable, catastrophic cases at huge expense.

Pouring more money into the system won't fix this. Screwing the people with good medical service is simply not necessary.Wait... it's a good idea for individuals to pour ever-increasing amounts of money into a health care system that works only for the people willing to pour more money into it, but not a good idea for the government to spend money so that access to care becomes universal? Every industrialized country but the US provides universal coverage, and yet the US spends 50% more of its national wealth on health care than any of them. And by many measures, the outcome of all that spending isn't all that great. Yeah... "Let them eat cake."

Blalron
10-18-2007, 10:51 PM
Let's just cut the bullshit on this "stealing money" thing right now. It's a red herring. Where is the outrage from the Right over the countless billions being thrown away in Iraq on military defense contractors? Or is "stolen money" only bad when it's used to actually help people instead of kill them? I think conservatives are just philosophically opposed to using the government to help people. And by "people" I mean the common man. Halliburton and Blackwater on the other hand, get plenty of government welfare.

You don't want to help the average joe, fine. Just be upfront about it. If conservatives actually cared about government waste in general they'd be supporting Ron Paul.

Johnny L.A.
10-19-2007, 01:40 PM
I wondering that about the OP, if the Republican spends his/her time defending what is an irrevocable right and the Democrat supposedly spends his/her time trying to take that away, aren't they equally wasting their time making a decision between them moot? :confused:
I have to say that I've sort of lost interest since this became a debate, and after some long days working. But to answer your question:

Whether the RTKBA is 'irrevocable' is open to debate. The way I read the Amendment is that the first part is a single justification for the second part, but not the only possible one. Basically: 'Since a militia is necessary, and since a militia is made up of the People, and since the People are expected to bring their own military-suitable firearms with them, we recognise the People's right to own arms.' (Notice also that when 'people' is used elsewhere it refers to individuals, so I don't think the intention was to redefine 'people' for this one Amendment.) The Framers, in their debates, also clearly believed that the People should be armed. In addition, it was assumed that people would hunt and they needed the tools to do that. And in the vein of 'A man's home is his castle' a person has the right to defend himself. There are lots of reasons to own firearms. Unfortunately the Framers decided to cite one single reason in the Amendment and people have latched onto that.

Another argument against the Amendment is that the Framers could not have known that there would be cartridge arms capable of firing rapidly. The counterargument is that that doesn't matter because it is assumed that the citizen soldiers would come equipped with arms suitable for military use, and that as advances were made in military arms citizen soldiers would adopt the same advances. (And just to head it off, I personally see a difference between 'aimed weapons' and 'area weapons'. So grenades and nukes don't count.)

The point is that a right may be eroded to the point where it is no longer a right. 'Free speech zones', anyone? Seventy-odd years ago fully automatic firearms, short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, and silencers were essentially banned. It's true that one can still obtain them according to federal law. But they are in fact banned in several states. One has the 'right' to own an M-16, but in many places it's impossible to exercise that right and everywhere else it is difficult and expensive. In 1968 further restrictions were enacted. For example, the Walther PPK semiautomatic pistol can only be bought if it came to the U.S. about 40 years ago. (The PPK/S is slightly larger.) And there's no more direct mail-order.

I remember in the 1980s there was a study that said most armed criminals used handguns, and most of those were revolvers. But Miami Vice made it appear that the crims were all toting Uzis and Mac-10s. People began to notice that AR-15s (which had been sold for a long time as a varmint rifle) and AKMs could be bought at gun shops. And they're scary looking. They're no different functionally than any number of non-military-derived rifles, but they are cosmetically offensive. And so they were banned. The federal ban has been lifted, but my native California still bans many of them. There are outright or virtual bans in many places in the U.S.

So the 'gun nuts' do have something to worry about. The hypothetical Republican in the OP would help them protect their rights. The Democratic candidate would definitely not think it was a waste of time.

As for health care, that may or may not be a 'right'. However many of us believe that since we support the government the government should help the People in return. It does this by building roads, providing police and firefighters, maintaining the military, looking out for our interests in foreign relations, and in many other ways. Why not help to ensure a healthy populace?

As has been previously pointed out, healthy citizens are more productive and add value to the economy. Catching health problems early is more cost effective than waiting for them to become critical. It just makes more economic sense to provide health care than it does not to.

I want to have the freedom to go down to the shooting range and launch projectiles at paper. (This supports businesses that sell ammunition, people who transport it, gas stations that fuel the trucks, etc.; and every one of those businesses pay taxes on the money they make from my hobby.) But I also want the freedom to not be locked into a given career or job and not have to worry if I'll be injured in an accident or come down with some horrible disease. People say 'freedom' and 'liberty', but they don't like to say specifically what they mean when they use those words. They say 'Freedom isn't free' when they want to support military adventures, but when it comes to cash they call it 'stealing property'. For me, freedom isn't 'the ability to do whatever the hell I please'. Freedom is being able to do as I please within the confines of accepted behaviour -- and freedom from being destroyed by people who are out to make a profit from other people's misfortune.

The choice in the OP is what is more important to you. Is it better to be able to own a gun (in this specific case) and potentially lose everything to accident or illness, or is it better to give up what is essentially a hobby (and yes, risk that you may not be able to defend yourself in a dire situation) in exchange for some sort of assurance that medical situations can be addressed before they become dire and without the risk of losing one's financial security?

That said, I would vote for the Democrat because of the old saying 'At least I still have my health.' If all guns were banned tomorrow I wouldn't be happy about it. But I'd still be healthy to be unhappy about it. If I were to be financially ruined because of some medical issue I'd lose the guns anyway (because I'd have to sell them) and a fat lot of good they'll do me when I'm dead.

I didn't start this thread to debate UHC. I started it for opinions on which of two issues is more important to the readers. Given that this started with a limited choice, I don't really want to debate the whole UHC issue here. That it became a debate is unfortunate. I'll save the debating for other threads.

Ravenman
10-19-2007, 01:53 PM
Johnny L.A.: That is an excellent post and I agree with nearly everything you said. Well done, sir.

Magiver
10-19-2007, 08:27 PM
Try this. (http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2007/february/page.jsp?itemID=29673862)
The child did get emergency care, $250,000 worth. But the problem was that because only one in seven dentists in Maryland accept Medicaid, a minor medical issue caused a needless death and huge hospital bills to be footed by the public. I'm boggled how you can defend a health care system that is incapable of preventing disease at low cost to the public, but will treat avoidable, catastrophic cases at huge expense. I'm boggled at the fact that you ignore the extreme failures present in countries that have UHC.
I've posted the delays found in Canada. You've posted a single example of a system where coverage existed and would have been available had more effort been made. You can make all the effort you want in Canada trying to see a physician. The line is still the same.

Wait... it's a good idea for individuals to pour ever-increasing amounts of money into a health care system that works only for the people willing to pour more money into it, but not a good idea for the government to spend money so that access to care becomes universal? Every industrialized country but the US provides universal coverage, and yet the US spends 50% more of its national wealth on health care than any of them. And by many measures, the outcome of all that spending isn't all that great. Yeah... "Let them eat cake." You can pour all the sentimental drivel you want but the reality is there is better care for more people in the United States with the current system we have.

UHC is only universal if you actually get it. We have immediate access to operations such as heart by-pass surgery. There's no wait involved. I've already posted the delays found in Canada. You responded by saying: Forget waits for specialists who can perform complex heart bypasses, there have been children in this country who have suffered -- even died -- because they couldn't see a dentist. Your only response has been a single child who was actually covered by our current system. The fact that the connection was not made does not negate the availability of the care. It's immediately available. It may not be as convenient as Canada but inconvenience is different than life threatening delays. Those delays would have killed the child outright. There would be no option in the wait to see a doctor over a toothache. That's where lives are saved. Actually getting to see a doctor for routine events that are more than they appear to be is a big deal. Look at the headlines today. Some kid just died because he got a staff infection that got into his lungs. He felt bad on a Thursday and had pneumonia in 2 days. He was dead in 2 weeks.

Kimstu
10-19-2007, 09:00 PM
You can pour all the sentimental drivel you want but the reality is there is better care for more people in the United States with the current system we have.

You still haven't supported this claim convincingly. All you've shown is that a lot of Canadians think their system has problems and want it to improve. There is no evidence whatsoever that Canadians in general want to trade their UHC system for a system like ours, with its complicated patchwork of incompatible for-profit insurers and huge gaps in coverage.

In fact, the satisfaction of Americans with their health care system is far lower than that expressed by people in other industrialized democracies with UHC systems, including Canada. As this report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html) notes (and it's a Fox News report, too, not some lefty blog):

U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction

Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care even while paying more of their own money for treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes.

The study shows that people in the U.S. face longer wait times to see doctors and have more trouble getting care on evenings or weekends than do people in other industrialized countries. [...]

One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.

ďIn no country is the majority of adults satisfied,Ē says Cathy Schoen, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit group that conducted surveys of some 7,000 patients in the five countries. [...]

Sixty percent of patients in New Zealand told researchers that they were able to get a same-day appointment with a doctor when sick, nearly double the 33 percent of Americans who got such speedy care. Only Canada scored lower, with 27 percent saying they could get same-day attention. Americans were also the most likely to have difficulty getting care on nights, weekends, or holidays without going to an emergency room.

Four in 10 U.S. adults told researchers that they had gone without needed care because of the cost, including skipping prescriptions, avoiding going to the doctor, or skipping a recommended test or treatment.

Meanwhile, 26 percent of Americans surveyed said that they had faced more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket health care costs in the last year, compared with 14 percent of Australians, and 4 percent of Britons.

ďThe U.S. stands out as the patients the most exposed to medical bills,Ē Schoen says

Yes, everybody complains about their health care system, because no health care system is without serious problems. However, if you're taking citizen dissatisfaction as a measure of the unsuccessfulness of a particular system, then you'll have to agree that the US system is the least successful, because it garners the most dissatisfaction.

jsgoddess
10-19-2007, 09:40 PM
All you've shown is that a lot of Canadians think their system has problems and want it to improve.

Where did he show that? He linked to an editorial that claimed it, but I didn't see any actual data.

Ravenman
10-20-2007, 12:23 AM
You can pour all the sentimental drivel you want but the reality is there is better care for more people in the United States with the current system we have. For people who have the right insurance. Life expectancy and infant mortality are measurably lower in the US than in Canada, and yet we devote nearly 50% more to health care spending than does Canada. Those aren't anecdotes, those are facts.
Your only response has been a single child who was actually covered by our current system. The fact that the connection was not made does not negate the availability of the care.Let's not dance around the issue: Are you claiming that medical care is more available to the poor -- including poor children -- in the US than in Canada?

Magiver
10-20-2007, 01:36 AM
For people who have the right insurance. Life expectancy and infant mortality are measurably lower in the US than in Canada, and yet we devote nearly 50% more to health care spending than does Canada. Those aren't anecdotes, those are facts. The fact is that we have a much higher mortality rate due to crime.

Let's not dance around the issue: Are you claiming that medical care is more available to the poor -- including poor children -- in the US than in Canada? Yes, that's what I'm saying. If you have 2 tax funded programs and one of them creates long waits, then the one that doesn't would be the better system. Between Medicaid and SCHIP funds (which are not all spent) the poor have better access to medical care than Canadians.

Conversely, if you don't like Medicaid (and how it functions) then why would you want to expand the program? The obvious outcome would beÖ. Canada.

Lobohan
10-20-2007, 01:42 AM
The obvious outcome would beÖ. Canada.

Which spends less than we spend per capita on health insurance and more of their population likes than our system. That Canada?

Man it would suck if we spent less money and had a system that everyone could use and more of the populace liked.

/sarcasm

Magiver
10-20-2007, 02:22 AM
You still haven't supported this claim convincingly. All you've shown is that a lot of Canadians think their system has problems and want it to improve. There is no evidence whatsoever that Canadians in general want to trade their UHC system for a system like ours, with its complicated patchwork of incompatible for-profit insurers and huge gaps in coverage.
I posted a Canadian government web site that addressed the shortfalls of their own system. They ration their care because of doctor shortages and a smaller ratio of diagnostic equipment in comparison to the US. It's not efficient and more importantly, it lacks any choice for people to escape a universally bad situation.

Dying in Queues (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524) bolding mine. Canadians who wish to live have to seak medical attention across the border because it's illegal to purchase services in Canada.

In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.)

In other words, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line.


American health care Vs Canadian UHC from the same article:

Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. Not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients had this brief a wait.

Magiver
10-20-2007, 02:24 AM
Which spends less than we spend per capita on health insurance and more of their population likes than our system. That Canada?

Man it would suck if we spent less money and had a system that everyone could use and more of the populace liked.

/sarcasm Candians spend more than other UHC countries and recieve less. Same article as above.

High Costs, Low Quality

A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

Kimstu
10-20-2007, 02:41 AM
If you have 2 tax funded programs and one of them creates long waits, then the one that doesn't would be the better system.

If you have 2 tax funded programs and one of them fails to cover a large chunk of the non-wealthy population, which then has to choose between doing without needed medical care and ruining themselves financially to obtain it, then the one that doesn't would be the better system.

Yes, the universal nature of Canada's healthcare system does put a strain on their medical services. They need more doctors, and they would probably be well-advised to pursue a "two-tier" system with optional private fee-based health services available for those who can afford them, in addition to the universal tax-funded system, to take some strain off existing providers. (New Zealand's UHC system has combined these public/private options with notable success, as have other UHC systems elsewhere.)

But overall, Canadians are more satisfied with their healthcare system than we are. In particular, few or no Canadians have any desire to discard their tax-funded universal system in favor of the sort of random patchwork of for-profit private insurers that we use. A sizable and growing percentage of Americans, however, want to trade in our system for something more like the Canadian one.

No, Americans don't like the prospect of long waits for medical care, but we also dislike the reality of unreliable health insurance, unaffordable medical costs, and lack of access to coverage. More and more Americans are getting really sick and tired of having the so-called "best medical care in the world" which they themselves can't afford access to or can't get an insurance company to pay for. In the last analysis, most people would choose second-best medical care that's actually available to them over a superior version that's out of their reach or can't be depended on.


The fact is that we have a much higher mortality rate due to crime.

Are you claiming that differences in life expectancy between the US and other industrialized democracies are due to a greater rate of violent deaths due to crime? (I presume you're not putting that forward as an explanation of the difference in infant mortality rates.)

If so, could we see a cite for it? Because AFAICT, homicide is a comparatively small contributor to US mortality rates, as this table (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/preliminarydeaths05_tables.pdf#B) (pdf) shows. You can see there that homicide ranks no higher than 15th among leading causes of death, behind heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory diseases, accidents, diabetes, Alzheimer's, influenza/pneumonia, nephritis, septicemia, suicide, liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson's.

In fact, homicide accounts for only 6 deaths per 100,000 US population annually, an almost negligible number when compared with the leading causes of death which rack up about 200, and even significantly lower than the death rate from blood poisoning or suicide.

The Canadian death rate from homicide (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html), in comparison, is a little over 2 per 100,000, approximately the same as other industrial democracies. I am rather skeptical that this difference is enough to account for the several years' difference in life expectancy that we see between the US and other developed countries, and would like to see your evidence for making that claim.

Candians spend more than other UHC countries and recieve less. Same article as above.

In other words, there are better UHC systems out there than Canada's. That isn't an argument against having a UHC system; that's an argument for having a UHC system that resembles, say, New Zealand's or Holland's somewhat more than Canada's.

And again, even with the problems in the Canadian medical system, Canadians still report higher satisfaction with it than Americans do with our system. Apparently even a mediocre UHC system is considered by its users (and a growing number of Americans too) to be preferable to a non-universal hodgepodge of a system like our own.

Ravenman
10-20-2007, 09:20 AM
The fact is that we have a much higher mortality rate due to crime. In 2006, there were 17,034 murders in the US. The University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0304/Jan19_04/00.shtml) published a paper saying that an estimated 18,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. If you have 2 tax funded programs and one of them creates long waits, then the one that doesn't would be the better system. Between Medicaid and SCHIP funds (which are not all spent) the poor have better access to medical care than Canadians. The same paper says that 75% of insured children in the US saw a doctor in 2001, but only half of uninsured children. Wait -- let me guess -- you're going to say that the uninsured children were actually healthier than the insured children, so they didn't need to see a doctor, right!
Conversely, if you don't like Medicaid (and how it functions) then why would you want to expand the program? The obvious outcome would beÖ. Canada.I say there are problems with the system because too few doctors take Medicaid patients. But are you denying that there are problems with Medicaid? Because you sure seem to be.

I think the first reasonable step is extending the health care plan for Federal workers to all Americans. People would have a choice to sign up for a cheapie HMO at a low price or a comprehensive plan at a big price. I bet businesses would love not having to worry about shouldering additional health care costs each year.

Evil Captor
10-20-2007, 09:49 AM
Let's see, take potshots at squirrels and the occasional Mormon missionary on weekends, or ensure health for me and my family? Gee, that's a tough one ...

Johnny L.A.
10-20-2007, 10:18 AM
In the last analysis, most people would choose second-best medical care that's actually available to them over a superior version that's out of their reach or can't be depended on.
A woman walks into a butcher shop and asks how much the steaks are. The butcher tells her, '$11.99 a pound.' The woman looks a little peeved and says, 'But the butcher down the street sells the same cut for $8.99 per pound!' The butcher says, 'Well, why don't you buy your steaks there then?' The woman tells him that the other butcher is sold out. 'So?' says the butcher, 'When I'm sold out I sell it for $7.99 a pound!'

Johnny L.A.
10-20-2007, 11:35 AM
Lucky Ducky: S-chape up, or S-chip out! (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/comics/td071020.gif)

mangeorge
10-20-2007, 11:38 AM
If by our government, you are refering to our military, you are correct. They have the most awesome "war machine" on the planet. But remember, it comes down to the individual soldier. If told to turn aginst their own people, would they? No doubt, there are those who would, but I can only imagine that many of them would not. I hope that day never comes!!!
Heh heh. That old arguement. Would they not turn against their own people because those people have guns due to the 2nd?
Anyway, they, the soldiers, wouldn't be turning against "their own people", they'd be protecting their beloved country from a bunch of wierdo radical insurgents who are trying to enslave the common majority.
I have several guns. I have them because my local laws say I can. I have them because it's fun to go shoot at paper once in a while. Self defense is just not happening with me.
Only once in my life have I ever been "at gunpoint", and that was many years ago in Bakersfield when some drunken redneck "drew down" on me. I took it away from him (grabbed it) and gave it to the cops when they showed up. He was pissed. :p
So, the second ammendment has little real meaning for me. I mean, I can't get really emotional about it. I don't feel physically threatened by the government.
As for universal health care, it's about time.
There ya go.
Peace,
mangeorge