Sam Stone, I think you missed post #4.
I’ve heard conservatives say, ‘Freedom is being able to do what you want, as long as it doesn’t harm another person or infringe upon his rights.’ But they never see how their self-centered attitudes harm others or infringe on others’ rights.
If, as conservatives say, we have the freedom to choose, then why do they want to take away our freedom to choose UHC?
I believe this (in fact it’s practically my motto in life), but I have absolutely no problem paying a little extra in taxes for the good of my fellow man. Most of us don’t mind paying taxes for things like national parks, universities, interstate highways, etc. Why does helping everyone get access to modern medicine touch so many nerves? Now if you want to argue that government will screw it up, or who pays isn’t the biggest problem, or the whole industry needs far more reform than just “UHC”, etc etc etc, fine, but anyone arguing simply that they shouldn’t have to pay or that paying for other people “infringes their freedom” is basically a malwired sociopathic dog turd, as far as I’m concerned. Selfish, hateful, and hypocritcal beyond all comprehension.
one other point to mention, is that in Australia at least we have a very competitive private health insurance industry with lots of choices, and my choice of private health insurer is not limited to options provided by my employer.
So assuming that in practice you actually must have some kind of insurance coverage, I am more free in Australia as I have more choices in coverage than in the US.
The sole “freedom” I have lost is not have any coverage at all, as I always have medicare, but in practice does anyone in the US who can afford it ever chose to not have any coverage? If not then your “freedom” is meaningless.
Yeah I know. I got here and they gave me a health card. I am not even a citizen.
It took like 20 minutes at a nice office down town. Now I have private, and public insurance and can choose what to use.
That’s Oppression for you.
When compared to Americans, as a Canadian, I have lost the freedom to die earlier, to be less healthy for a longer period prior to dying, to pay more per capita through taxes for health care, and to pay more individually for health care. Cite.
I dunno about it being “the American creed since its foundation”, but there’s a strong streak in our makeup that insists that my stick is no less important than your nose - and indeed, in certain contexts, it may be more important.
Just like someone whose private insurance is refusing to pay for a procedure, or who don’t have insurance, those people have the option to get service paying it out of their own pocket. The people whose private insurance refuses to pay for procedures do not have the option to ask for their money back any more than the people under government-managed insurance.
Please note: UHC does not equal government-managed insurance. In the Swiss model, insurance companies must offer insurance to everybody; the government sets up what’s the minimum coverage that has to be offered, but not at which rates. Except to verify that those insurance companies which have chosen to work under this law (they can choose not to) do indeed comply with the conditions it’s set, the government does no management, no taxation, no payments.
Sam Stone, I was genuinely interested in your take on this and you ignored it twice. Are you going to respond?
I’m not a conservative, but the ones I know feel that any government social program takes their freedom away. However, the established social programs (social security, medicare) are ok with them. Many of the people protesting health reform are old enough to qualify for social security and medicare, and I’d assume the average person over 65 probably collects 25k or more a year in medicare and social security aid.
However, they are usually the same people who support expanding the power and authority of the military, espionage agencies and police.
The average fox news and talk radio listener, the one who listens to endless diatribes about welfare queens, the evils of big government, and the importance of being financially independent, is 65-67 years old, making them qualify for social security and medicare.
No idea how the thinking works.
The people who collect government pensions and single payer mandatory healthcare are usually the biggest opponents of government wealth redistribution and social programs. They also would fight like hell to protect those programs if you took them away. And despite the talk about the evils of government, they are happy with expanding police, espionage and military power.
Personally I think that its disgusting that we’re forced to accept Universal Civic Hygiene Services whether we want them or not.
Disposing of waste and cleaning the streets is no business of government at any level,local or otherwise.
It takes away my freedom to dump my garbage on my neighbours lawn and my freedom to enjoy the aroma of festering rubbish left untouched in the streets.
And anyway I live in a cabin in the forest,why should I pay for city slickers to have these services?
And the military,Al Quiada/The Russians/Chinese/Welsh have never threatened me personally so why should I pay for armed forces to defend me from them?
And don’t get me talking about the police .
If someone commits a crime against me or my family I can kill them with my privately owned arsenal of small arms, so why does the government force me to pay for courts,judges,LEOs and all the rest?
Apart from everything else no ones ever committed a crime against me.
Lets get government meddling out of our lives once and for all.
Lets stop all these intrusions on our perssonal freedoms.
I’m alright jack.
Libertarian and proud to be one.
(just so long as the rest of you pay to protect me,my ideas and my way of life of course)
It’s not that government provision is always bad, it’s only bad if it’s SOCIALISM.
You can tell SOCIALISM from acceptable government provision quite easily. If the rich need the government to do something (infrastructure, security, etc) then it’s okay. If the rich don’t need the government to do it, but everyone else does, then it’s SOCIALISM.
Clear now?
You forgot to include universal public health care for Congress critters and Senators and their families in this list. 
In the current US system I am not free to purchase health insurance because I have a pre-existing condition, so health insurance will not be sold to me at any price.
I have a private insurance plan from a UK company but it is not valid in the US because US law does not allow it to be sold in the USA… thus in the US system I am not even free to buy insurance from a foreign company. At least I had the freedom to leave the USA.
You are free to move to Somalia where the government will not do anything for you.
This is of course the same ‘freedom’ as in:
‘The rich have the freedom to live in mansions; the poor have the freedom to live under bridges’.
As usual, the opponents of health care in the US shout and denigrate, ignoring the facts.
In the UK, for example there are parallel systems of UHC and private medicine.
Every political party supports UHC and it is a lifesaver for poor people.
There are no ‘death panels’ and the system is extremely popular.
The Republican vision of US health care is all-private hospitals with armed guards keeping out poor people.
Think of the profits they could make! :smack:
I’m starting to think UBB needs a “satire” code …
Actually, its about $4 per year per capita http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?country=som&indicators=nha according to the World Health Organizaton – you know, those same commies whose stats show that the American government pays more for health care per capita but gets poorer results than other first world nations that have socialized medicine (e.g. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10373981&postcount=452 )
US health care freedom: http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/illusion.PNG
Sam, the heathcare debate in the United States is being filled with inaccurate comments about systems in other countries. Please, please, please do not add to this pile of inaccurate commentary.
Doctors in Canada began the process of extra-billing to raise their incomes in 1978. This is over 30 years ago, Sam.
As has been mentioned, doctors ARE free to pick their patients. In fact, to help you, Calgary health has a list of doctors who are accepting new patients. (I guess they may not be allowed to say “you’re too fat, you can’t be my patient”, but then that sort of goes against professional conduct anyway) Other doctors are NOT accepting new patients
Provincial governments may indeed publish Standards of care for things like chronic disease management. These standards are set by groups like the Guidelines and Protocols Advisory Committee, which is composed of members of the provincial ministry of health (usually doctors with much experience, my uncle being one, and a former medical director of a hospital), and the provincial medical association doctors. In my mind, I’m VERY HAPPY that we’re using these standards, instead of what some doctor who graduated 3rd last in his class is “free” to use.
People on waiting lists for MRI’s ultrasound, CT scans (for example), are free to go to
private clinics such as these ones in Alberta, and pay for them outside of their public insurance.
So… Please Sam Stone, STOP spreading misinformation.