Are you serious?
On the chance that you are -
[ul][li]You want to spend a shitload of money we haven’t got on health care[/li][li]Oh yeah? You spent a shitload of money we haven’t got on the war in Iraq![/ul][/li]It is an almost classic example. Look at the kind of shit they are spewing -
Like I said, something they pull out of their recta when they got nothing better.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I’m not serious. :rolleyes: What do you think? I said it for chuckles?
But that’s not what’s being said. What’s being asked is: Why is it that we can spend money on an unjustified war, but we can’t spend money on something justified like health care? That is not tu quoque. It’s not accusing an opponent of doing the same thing that you are being accused of. A real tu quoque is basically an admission of guilt while saying “but you do it too!”
We can argue about which activity, if either, is justified, but obviously the people asking the question feel that one activity is justified and the other isn’t, so there’s no accusation of hypocrisy being made here. The accusation is of misplaced priorities.
Fucking goverment! One day it’s flu shots, then before you know it, BOOM! They’re covering cancer surgery! Horrible, I tell you. Just horrible!
But never fear! We ain’t no Commies! This ain’t Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Bhutan, Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Pakistan, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand…
God dammit, man! This is AMERICA! Home of the FREE!
(sniff) …brings a tear to your eye, don’t it?
I have two basic problems with it:
I do not believe it is constitutional for the federal government to have anything to do with health care. See the 10th Amendment.
I do not believe health care is a natural right. (You do not have to pay money in order to exercise a natural right.) I also do not believe it should be a legal right.
See Medicare, since 1965 and not a single court challenge to keep the government out.
That is nice, the problem is that the corporations will make sure to continue hiking their premiums if no changes are implemented.
Leading to what amounts to a bubble and then to another bailout (With, guess whose money) that would had been prevented if we had acted earlier.
And on top of that, by the time we are forced to bailout health care and do the needed changes, by then even more Americans will be going bankrupt or even dying before we decided to do the right thing.
Perhaps. But I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion is that Medicare is unconstitutional.
And the evidence to show that is so?
Zero.
Do you honestly think that health insurance in this country has no effect on interstate commerce?
-Piker
Or international commerce.
I have seen reports that show that because of the cost of our health care, foreign companies now think twice on setting shops in the USA. And it is another reason why companies at home are shipping jobs overseas…
I should point out the “universal health care” in Thailand is a sad, crap joke. Theoretically, no one need pay more than 30 baht (88 US cents) for care. Heaven help anyone who needs anything more than, say, their blood pressure taken.
Interesting. So lack of UHC maybe increasing the tax burden on everyone else when the lost tax revenue from the lost business is added in.
UHC is yet another government entitlement program. We need fewer entitlements, not more. Invariably, everyone wants to take more out of these programs than they put in. So, the burden is invariably shifted to future taxpayers. Since children can’t vote, these laws can get passed without immediate political consequences and we end up passing the cost onto future generations. It’s a perfect example of a ponzi pyramid scheme.
Let’s imagine you are in charge of UHC for your local neighborhood. There’s 100 people living on your street.
These people want their medical costs paid in full by you and are willing to fork over at most $1000 per year for full coverage as they say they cannot afford any more. You cannot refuse to cover people for pre-existing conditions, you must accept all comers. You cannot cut corners or substitute less expensive treatments without getting angry complaints.
Ten of your neighbors are rather old and have expensive chronic conditions. They want $100,000 each to cover their medical costs for the year and if you refuse any of their tests or treatments, they’ll yell at you about your supposed “death panel”. 10 of your neighbors have temporary conditions like pregnancy or a broken limb. They want $10k this year. Another twenty neighbors are only slightly sick and tell you they want $1000 for the year. (They may not need $1000, but they’ll be damned if they use up less than the amount they put in!)
Sixty of your neighbors are perfectly healthy and would claim less than $100 from your program for the year. They are demanding the freedom to opt out of your program.
Who do you screw over? The promises you made about your reforms lowering total costs have not materialized and the medical bills are piling up and must be paid NOW. Where do you get the money to pay these bills?
This brings up an interesting point. When pro-UHC folks look at the rest of the world with their UHC, they tend to look at the success stories; the opposite, of course, with the anti-UHC advocates.
My question is, how, generally, do the nations with UHC rank as far as their success with their individual programs and styles? Feel free to define success in any way you wish, as long as it has some context in common with the current debate here in the States. Just so it’s more relevant.
One way or another, everything affects interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly. Guess this means the federal government can do whatever it wants, correct?
IMO the federal government needs to get out of the health care business. This is supposed to be a free country, not a socialistic hellhole.
a health insurance company
happily
don’t need to
freely
and have a call center to deal with
Basically, anybody who could be expected to need anything more than preventative health care, because they don’t get insurance, and anyone who is poor.
I am reminded of a Frenchman here I used to be acquainted with. He had a Thai wife. When she went into labor and he took her to the hospital, he refused to pay extra for painkillers or anything else! He said no, this country has a 30-baht healthcare scheme, and she’s Thai, so that’s good enough for her. The poor girl never did get any painkillers. Jerk 
Insurance companies are the problem not the solution. They charge higher rates every year. They cut benefits while charging more. They deny coverage that they are paid for. They take about 30 % for running it.
We pay far more than other countries for much worse results. The system can be made far cheaper, more efficient and user friendly. Our system is wasteful. We do not have to get more money. All we have to do is use it properly.
[quote=“Stratocaster, post:4, topic:509173”]
Yes. I do not for a second buy the silliness that we will somehow expand coverage AND decrease costs. That’s a fantasy, one that has already been debunked.
[quote]
Well we can get universal coverage for less money we just have to have an honest discussion about what level of health care we feel people should get regardless of their ability to pay.
Medicare part c (medicare administered through private insurance companies) costs about 12% more per insured than the government run program. The insurance company 3% profit margin does not include executive compensation and unnecessary overhead. Meanwhile medicare has a 3% overhead.
All goods are effectively rationed by the pricing mechanism. I thought that our society had decided long ago that health care is one of those things that we do not distribute solely on ability and willingness to pay. The government rations all sorts of things. For example education, is rationed, I am sure every student would do much better with individual tutors but we decided to ration education so that 30 kids will have to share a teacher. If you want your individual tutor, then you will have to pay for it yourself.
The very essence of insurance is risk distribution and risk shifting. A form of societal savings for the rainy day. What exactly is your proposal for dealing with sick people who have gotten booted by their insurance companies? I guess we could let them die, after all people die every day.
Except for the fact that it legally won’t be able to do that.
Have you heard of the commerce clause or the welfare clause? How do you feel about the federal government’s ability to pass tort reform? I am getting the feeling you are a libertarian, not the “I will adopt any excuse to smoke pot kind” but the “I will adopt any excuse not to pay taxes kind.”
I knew that the inevitable complaints would be made about one or another countries that I listed. Truth is, I copied them off of a Wikipedia webpage. I did look a bit further into some of them where the Wiki entry noted “citation needed”. But I wasn’t very thorough about my overall verification because I was only trying to make a point. That is, that the USA is in something of a minority among many countries, wealthy and otherwise, when it comes to government health care. Which would be fine if we had it right and everybody else was screwing it up. But I don’t think that’s the case. Except maybe in Thailand. 
I would just like to say that this is a ***really good point ***and an appropriate analogy to the health care situation in America. I hope that y’all will reconsider this and give it a little thought. Thank you.