[QUOTE=tagos]
Unlike the perfectly reasonable constriction on human freedom dying from lack of medical care entails.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the point is that it’s good to have a balance. What the right balance is, I’m not sure, but implying that even having a concern about giving up freedoms is unreasonable is, well, unreasonable.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But, as has been mentioned already in this thread, we get those restrictions even without UHC. E.g., we’ve had laws against certain recreational drugs since the early 20th Century. And smoking is now more restricted in the U.S. than almost anywhere else – even though it’s a vice this country gave the world.
How do we have any more “personal freedom” in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe?
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I’m against those kind of vice laws…but I can understand fully the desire to have them under a UHC system. If I have to pay for problems people cause themselves through drug use, I’m going to be a lot more likely to want to ban those drugs than otherwise.
Secondly, Sam Stone was talking about Canada, not the US. He apparently feels that in Canada, personal freedom is more threatened than it used to be, because of UHC. If restrictions on freedom have increased in Canada…my question is, to what point is that reasonable, or something we want to live with here in the US?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, the point is that it’s good to have a balance. What the right balance is, I’m not sure, but implying that even having a concern about giving up freedoms is unreasonable is, well, unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
Arguing (not implying) that UHC is any kind of threat to freedom is far, far more unreasonable.
Michael Moore and people of his ilk love to exaggerate the problems in America. Yes, there are some scary neighborhoods around, but most of us do not live in fear of being killed, mugged, raped, or whatever. Apparently, however, Michael Moore does. Sucks to be him, but the rest of us get along just fine.
It’s like listening to marijuana users talk about alcohol. To hear a pothead talk, you’d be safer walking around the streets of Bagdad at night than you would be in a bar in America. It’s total nonsense, of course.
Incidentally, living in a norther border state, we see plently of Canadian doctors here. They mostly come down to make more money. I can’t blame them; it takes a long time and a ton of effort to become a doctor. If there’s one profession on earth that deserves to make a lot of money, it’s doctors.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
:rolleyes: Any studies to support these statements? If true, this would qualify as appalling.
[/QUOTE]
Not a study, but my aunt has a tumor on her adrenal gland and was put on a waiting list for an MRI to have a closer look at it (I think it was MRI, some kind of scan, anyway). Eight months after being put on the list, she got a call from the hospital saying that she should probably be going for the scan in the next six months. So she went to a private clinic, and paid a bunch of money for the scan instead.
Not exactly comforting.
[QUOTE=jshore]
Another thing on the “freedom” point: Not having universal health care is very restrictive on your freedom too because you are often tied to a job in order to keep your health care particularly if, heaven forbid, you actually have some sort of medical condition! (Of course, I am assuming here that you are employable at a high enough level where health insurance comes with the job.)
[/QUOTE]
Not true. There is no reason that health insurance needs to be tied to your job, and we could decouple that by modifying the tax code. You don’t need universal healthcare to do that. You don’t get any other kind of insurance thru your job, because car, home or life insurance wouldn’t be tax deductible for your employer.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
First of all, I’m against those kind of vice laws…but I can understand fully the desire to have them under a UHC system. If I have to pay for problems people cause themselves through drug use, I’m going to be a lot more likely to want to ban those drugs than otherwise.
Secondly, Sam Stone was talking about Canada, not the US. He apparently feels that in Canada, personal freedom is more threatened than it used to be, because of UHC. If restrictions on freedom have increased in Canada…my question is, to what point is that reasonable, or something we want to live with here in the US?
[/QUOTE]
I asked Sam Stone to give us more details on the personal freedoms he fears losing in Canada.
Down here in Houston, Texas, we haven’t been smoking in restaurants for some time. Some bars are next; this was a state law that was watered down. Nearly all work places & stores are smoke free. Plus malls & transit stops.
This being Texas, we’ve got widely varying liquor laws. From outright bans in certain counties/cities/former cities to just following the State guidelines in many areas.
And we hear plenty of propaganda against trans-fats, obesity, etc. (Not that I think those concerns are unfounded.)
I just wondered what, specifically, was different in Canada. However, he hasn’t gotten back to me yet.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Arguing (not implying) that UHC is any kind of threat to freedom is far, far more unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Have you forgotten what board you’re on? “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is obviously unreasonable” is not the stuff of intelligent discourse.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Arguing (not implying) that UHC is any kind of threat to freedom is far, far more unreasonable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, ok then, you’ve convinced me.
[QUOTE=Diceman]
:rolleyes: Have you forgotten what board you’re on? “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is obviously unreasonable” is not the stuff of intelligent discourse.
[/QUOTE]
Nor is it all I’m relying on. See post #18.
Looking at Canadas medical system as being more caring and reasonable than ours, and asking to defend Canada as a Utopia is a long stretch. Canada has problems. They make up fpr it with better beer.
Where does the idea that a more humane medical system results in fewer freedoms come from? our information gathering is as always the best and most aggressive in the world. We are in a losing fight with corporations that are gathering incredible amounts of personal data. Our xrays are being read in India. and China. The profit driven medical system we have has no interest in keeping our records private.We are destroying our freedoms for profit. A more humane medical system is not an equivalent threat.
[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
I asked Sam Stone to give us more details on the personal freedoms he fears losing in Canada.
Down here in Houston, Texas, we haven’t been smoking in restaurants for some time. Some bars are next; this was a state law that was watered down. Nearly all work places & stores are smoke free. Plus malls & transit stops.
[/QUOTE]
Up here in Chicago, too. The thing is, banning smoking in public is an attempt to stop infringing on the rights of others not to breathe smoke. I don’t necessarily agree with these bans in all cases, but it does make sense not to allow smoking in truly public places. What Sam Stone is saying is happening is different…banning the usage of dangerous or unhealthy substances completely, because it infringes on the population in a different way…by taking their money to pay for healthcare for the people who use them. If you have bad effects from smoking, that’s your problem. If I have to pay for your cancer treatment, then it becomes my problem.
Again, I don’t believe in these kinds of vice laws…I don’t believe drinking should be regulated…I think any negative effects on the population should be regulated.
This is a better example of something that is regulated only to help people from doing harm to their own person. I don’t believe in laws that attempt to resuce people from their own bad behaviors.
I am interested to hear, too.
[QUOTE=Daffyd]
Yep, I actually find myself walking around in the middle of the largest city in Canada not worrying about being shot. .
[/QUOTE]
Some one has to finally take this old canard out and, I don’t know, maybe shoot it. You can also walk around America’s largest cities and not worry about getting shot, for the most part.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not true. There is no reason that health insurance needs to be tied to your job, and we could decouple that by modifying the tax code. You don’t need universal healthcare to do that. You don’t get any other kind of insurance thru your job, because car, home or life insurance wouldn’t be tax deductible for your employer.
[/QUOTE]
Okay…but there is a fundamental difference between those different kinds of insurance, at least in the view of some of us: E.g., if you have lots of car accidents and you thus have to pay through the nose for insurance (or have trouble getting insurance at all), well, that’s your tough luck. However, many of us would argue that even if you have some bad health issues, you should still be able to get affordable health insurance.
Maybe there are legislative fixes for this short of universal health care also but they would certainly involve a fair bit more regulation of insurance companies.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Couple detail nitpicks. You can get insurance for your own business in the US, I’m not sure why you think you can’t. In most states business of two people qualify for group coverage and in some states a business of one person qualifies. Business coverage typically means that health status is not relevent to getting the coverage. (You might have a waiting period on a pre-existing condition, it varies by company)
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s good to hear…although your last parenthetical statement still worries me. I also wonder how this is structured so that any individual can’t just set up a phony business to get themselves insured at the business coverage rates.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not true. There is no reason that health insurance needs to be tied to your job, and we could decouple that by modifying the tax code. You don’t need universal healthcare to do that. You don’t get any other kind of insurance thru your job, because car, home or life insurance wouldn’t be tax deductible for your employer.
[/QUOTE]
You can get life insurance through many jobs. It’s almost always term coverage, but it is available.
Part of the point of having health insurance available through work is that employers have a vested interest in having healthy employees. The insurance cost is part of their investement in having qualified, trained staff.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Some one has to finally take this old canard out and, I don’t know, maybe shoot it. You can also walk around America’s largest cities and not worry about getting shot, for the most part.
[/QUOTE]
Generally true, with many exceptions, depending on neighborhood and time of day. But it is no canard, is it, that Canadian cities are markedly safer in that regard, on balance?
[QUOTE=jshore]
Another thing on the “freedom” point: Not having universal health care is very restrictive on your freedom too because you are often tied to a job in order to keep your health care particularly if, heaven forbid, you actually have some sort of medical condition! (Of course, I am assuming here that you are employable at a high enough level where health insurance comes with the job.)
And, we are not talking dramatic medical problems here. When I was in grad school, the grad student organization got an insurance company to agree to write students who desired it policies to extend the university coverage for grad students that capped out at a paltry $50,000 up to $1 million. When I filled out the form and told the insurance guy that I had had kidney stones, he told me they would have to exclude that as a pre-existing condition. He then said, “You just had one kidney stone, right?” I said, no, actually I have had 3 over the years. He looked up in his magic book and I was “NCA” (no coverage available). He said the best he could do is write me an “accidents only” policy. This was for an otherwise healthy male in his mid 20’s.
So, when the U.S. talks about being the land of opportunity and enterpreneurship, just remember that, while it may be that if you are in perfect health, don’t think about being in business for yourself if you actually have any medical conditions! [The one saving grace is a law passed, over opposition by many Republicans, called “COBRA” that requires the insurance company of an employer who has given you health insurance (and perhaps has a company of a certain minimum size?) to allow you to continue to buy into the group plan at the rates that the company pays for 18 months after you leave the job.]
[/QUOTE]
<nitpick> The federal law was HIPAA, and COBRA is a part of that overarching law. HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Postability and Accountability Act, and the portability is what allows you to avoid pre-ex as long as you’ve had a year of qualifying coverage immediately prior. COBRA allows you to maintain your old coverage for 18 months (usually) at the old rate +2% (for admin costs).
-Cem
[QUOTE=jshore]
Well, that’s good to hear…although your last parenthetical statement still worries me.
[/quote]
It varies by state law and by the company, that’s why I qualified my statement. For example, California law allows up to a six month exclusionary period for pre-existing conditions but not all companies use that provision.
That again would vary and I can only speak for California. Under the law, the owners of a business are asked to attest in writing that they derive most of their income from the business as opposed to other employment and that they work at least 20 hours per week in the business as well as provide documentation that they own a business. (such as a business license or articles of incorporation). Are there people that are gaming the system? Probably.
[QUOTE=jshore]
Maybe there are legislative fixes for this short of universal health care also but they would certainly involve a fair bit more regulation of insurance companies.
[/QUOTE]
It would require a whole revamping of Capitalism. Like it or not, we have a private-sector driven Insurance setup. Insurance companies are for-profit (excepting certain Blue licensees), and will try to make money.
The good (gasp!) thing about that is that other companies are also interested in saving money. Therefore, insurance companies offer price-sensitive plans to smaller companies, and offer administrative services (claims paying, clinical review, etc.) to larger companies. When the company is large enough, statistics allows the company to accurately predict costs, and they then play with their own money.
Try regulating the lawyers first (tort reform), then the malpractice legislation (kinda the same thing in this case), and then the hospitals themselves.
-Cem