Quite a bit of this is nothing more than misleading talking points. No doubt there are serious problems but it doesn’t help the argument by citing misleading numbers:
This is due in large part on the definition of live birth. Many countries don’t report births under a certain weight, gestation time, or babies that die within the first 24 hours. In addition, the use of fertility drugs, teen smoking and drug use increase the number of premature births.
Subtract out fatal injuries and homicides and we have one of the highest rates of life expectancy.
This one is dubious at best. There have been many critiques of the original report that suggest that the authors did not take into account or weigh contributing factors (i.e. not being able to afford the mortgage thus also defaulting on the $1000.00 medical bill.)
Subtract out 10 million illegals, 18 million middle to high income earners who choose not to purchase insurance, and the 14 million who are eligible for government programs but are not signed up and you will get a more accurate number. Also, a large percent of uninsured are under 34 and may be gambling that they won’t get sick.
You think that someone with a serious medical problem might have some issues working? Do you think that might impact his mortgage? Do you think that preventative care might save some people in that situation? They’re intertwined.
I’ll pretend that all your numbers are accurate and that there isn’t any overlap. Think real hard here. What happens when those people get sick? Who pays for it?
In any case, many relatively high income people can’t get insurance at any price. And there are people who are moderate income who can’t afford any insurance at all because of it being priced out of their reach.
Medicine is as important as food, and you’re advocating a system where some people must pay 50X the normal cost to eat. That’s not an intelligent system. It’s less efficient and causes more misery.
But none of this really matters, because the law is constitutional and gonna take effect in a couple years.
Lobohan, you missed my point. All of those stats are difficult to measure and there are no clear cut numbers for any of those stats. Each of those points could be a separate thread. The left will take the bleakest numbers and the right will take the rosiest numbers. The point is that of course we have many problems that need to be addressed, but throwing out debatable numbers as facts does not help find a solution.
But none of this really matters. The individual mandate is unconstitutional and the entire law will collapse like a deck of cards in a couple of years.
Even if one doesn’t agree that health care is a ‘right’, surely it can be understood that having to step over dead and dying poor people while walking down the street would dramatically decrease one’s quality of life.
Or seeing those denied emergency care holding medical professionals at gunpoint in order to save their dying children.
The ‘no handouts’ crowd never seems to consider what their Utopian vision would look like in reality.
You’ve probably never lived anywhere where the gov’t didn’t pick up a majority of the tab for health care costs either. Even in the pre-Obamacare US, the gov’t picked up the majority of healthcare spending.
I live in the US, where the poor are currently (and have always been) entitled to government provided medical care - just in the least cost-effective way possible.
No, I’m reasonably comfortable with the system we have now. And it doesn’t often result in either holding medical professionals at gunpoint or corpses in the street.
Do you recall the period in history that spawned the phrase, “Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute?”
Do you agree with that sentiment, or would you have pointed out to Marshall and Gerry that paying Tallyrand the money was much cheaper than going to war?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t agree that health care is a basic right, such that it should be funded by the government for you if you can’t pay for it.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker, I’m not trying to gotcha-ya you here, but can you help me reconcile these two statements?
And, of course, my ‘dying on the streets/gunpoint’ scenario is based on a removal of all government funded healthcare, including emergency room care, which I thought you were advocating in the first statement.
You’re conflating money and currency. The government creates currency. They do not create anything, they spend money on things. So, the question stands.
Our current system does result in the government paying for some medical care under some circumstances, but it’s not structured as a benefit – the person receiving the care owes the money. The government covers his cost, yes, and from a practical standpoint may have only a tiny chance of recouping their expenditure, but the fact remains that they can. The system treats government payments now as a necessary evil, and does not consider the recipient entitled to keep them.
Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. are all structured as benefits. The government doesn’t really have any intention or desire to recoup most of the money spent from the recipient, aside from the small fraction thats paid in co-payments and the like. And they make up the bulk of medical spending by the government, and indeed the majority of healthcare spending in general.
Yes, that’s true. But each of those are entitlements to a specific class of person. The VA, especially, is providing medical care as a job benefit for the military. Medicare and Medicaid require qualification, and frankly I’m not wild about them, either.
But none of them transforms health care into an entitlement you get by simply breathing.