[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pervert *
**So, according to these figures, we should have thousands of people dieing in the streets for lack of medical aid.**We do. Lower Wacker Drive in Chicago. Skid Row in Los Angeles. The Bowery in New York. These places are filled with people, many of whom are dying, in large part because of a lack of medical care.
We have a lot more people who are working below their potential either because they have medical issues that are not being treated or because they spend an inordinate amount of time caring for family with otherwise untreated medical conditions.
Only if they’re at imminent risk of death, and then only enough care to make them so they won’t die immediately. So these people serially go to the hospital for charity care, meaninglessly extending their suffering until they either don’t make it to the hospital in time, or choose to die.
Seriously, check our your local homeless hangout, and notice how many of the people there have untreated or inadequately treated medical conditions. Don’t forget to check for things like dental care, skin infections, and mental illness.
Can I be the first to say that this is an incredibly insulting comment? Because I support universal healthcare, that doesn’t make me anti-American. There are pros and cons to each system, and its up to society to weight those out and determine what is more important to them, not what makes the best stance from which to attack another nation.
Regarding comments made earlier by pervert about me “not paying”. The fact is, I don’t pay a lot, but I do pay some income tax, proportional to what I make. I also pay federal and provincial taxes on all my purchases (15% of the total cost of the items). When I make more money, I will pay more income tax, and likely purchase more things, and therefore pay more GST and PST. In return for this, I get a “free” health care system, as well as other benefits from government-run programs. I do not consider taxes to be equivalent to theft, which I suppose is the fundamental difference in our views on this. As a Canadian, I grew up knowing about taxes, knowing I’d lose part of my income to the government, but also knowing (at least in theory) where that money went. I do have a choice - I can leave. But my values are common to those of the generic “Canadian society” if there is such a thing, and so I choose to stay here, with all that that encompasses.
You mention a voluntary giving of money - how many people do you know would donate their money to the government to spend it on health care? Not many, I’ll bet.
Basically, I think universal health care/insurance is a good thing because of the whole whack of values that I hold, which includes taking care of all members of society. I haven’t come across a perfect system, but the fundamentals of it are important to me, and I see them as being a good societal goal.
I am hesitant to continue discussing this myself, since a lot of what I’m saying is more IMHO, without cites or any of the rest of the GD stuff. Just gut feelings and emotions, totally inapropriate for this forum! I will continue reading, though, so if anyone wants to discuss something I said, I will pop in again.
-mnemosyne wanders off into her young and naïve world…
You asked for people to address this, so I’d like to.
If you assume that this is true, why does you need of X not constitute a defense for stealing X? Assume if you like that no voilence is committed. For instance, if I am starving and I go onto a farm and steal grain for myself and my family, do I get a pass if the case comes to court? Note, I’m not asking if you think I should get a pass. I’m interested in if you can demonstrate that I do get a pass, and if not, can you explain why not?
If you are serious about this part: “X is necessary for you to live, then the government should give you some base level of X so that you do not die.” Then you may have described the system we have in the US.
True health care is about more than just keeping people from dying.
It’s also about preventive medicine: treating conditions before they become life-threatening, or preventing conditions from cropping up in the first place (immunization, nutrition, etc.).
It’s also about mental health, which you won’t find treated in an ER.
And, hopefully, it’s affordable. You shouldn’t have to sell your house or spend the rest of your life in debt to pay for your treatment, simply because you don’t make enough money or have the right job to get good insurance.
What else do you think it’s about?
Can you provide details?
I replied on the first page, and I’d like to see your response. Universal health care doesn’t mean everyone who wants health care has to get it from the government.
So, while the hospitals are not required to provide ellective procedures (OK, not only ellective, but certainly not only life threatening either), they do have to help you if you have a serious medical problem. That is, if you need a doctor they have to help you.
I agree with this also. But what about socialized (even partially socialized) medicine will achieve this? Will not higher taxes result in a lessening of the ability to buy homes in the first place?
Personally, I think it is about a massive power grab. The proponents hope to have the government become the filter through which a multi billion dollar industry must pass. From what I’ve seen, it seems to have very little to do with helath care. Consider for a moment that the most adverse health situation in our country has NOTHING to do with doctors (over eating). So, if the concern is really making Americans more healthy (as opposed to appropriating some wealth for others) why is the only solution offered to pay for doctors with more Federal or State monies?
I’m not recomending this program for the US. I think there are better ways to get health care affordable. But this is certainly better than fully socialized medicine ala Canada or Britain.
pervert, no, of course you don’t get a pass, because the law is not set up to cater for this sort of situation. It’s a simple factual question; there is no self-defense clause in property crime law.
Also, ethically the answer is also no, because there is a system in place to prevent you starving. Welfare, social security, the dole, whatever you call it. There are also charities that will feed you. You don’t need to steal to eat.
If there were no such option, then you would IMO have an ethical, but not legal, right to steal. This was the system a couple of hundred years ago. Stealing bread to feed your family could get you hanged, or sent to penal colonies in America and later Australia.
But is the existence of welfare the only reason that you are not allowed to steal food? Doesn’t his imply that people who need medical care and cannot get it free have a right to steal it? Perhaps to force doctors to care for them?
I think that there is in fact a self defence clause in regards to property crime. Am I not allowed to use reasonable force to protect myself and my property? Might this imply a right to own property which trumps another’s need of that property?
I don’t want to get into a complete hijack, but the law and ethics are not completely different things. They are not identical surely, but they are related. Especially when considering new laws, ethics should also be considered.
I wasn’t aware of that proposal, nor does it sound appealing.
My point was that consulting with nutritionists is part of preventive medicine, and not something you’ll get in an ER. Thus, a government scheme to assure that everyone has access to preventive medicine would, hopefully, result in more people seeing nutritionists–or getting advice and checkups for other health concerns.
The same thing that lets health insurance achieve it: Most people won’t need expensive care. The people who don’t need it subsidize the people who do.
Depends who pays the taxes and how much they pay. Certainly a family earning $40k a year will be better equipped to pay a little more in taxes than to pay for a $100,000 hospital stay out of pocket.
Like any change, it’ll be good for some people and not so good for others… but overall, costs will be lower, if other countries with universal healthcare are any indication.
Obesity is an important concern, but it’s a separate problem. Just try telling someone who has to sell his house to pay for an urgent operation that what he really needs is to eat fewer Big Macs.
It is one thing to advocate a specific type of social program. It is quite another to make it the sole yardstick whereby to bash societies that don’t have it.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to see any kind of specialist in a government funded system. Especially if we simply hand the rains over to the state and hope they will provide good health care. Consider that the politicians will be motivated entirely by votes. So if people constantly consider the options, evaluate the long term costs and benifits, and act in concert with each other, then the government could be held accountable enough to provide an adequate health care system. Unfortunately I think it will be a very cold day in hell indeed before the electorate is this enlightened. It is much more likely that they will simply clamour for more health care (whatever that happens to mean at the moment) and lower taxes. Since the taxes will be evident, I think it much more likely that costs will trump care. I realize all this is MHO, but it is much more reasonable IMHO than the idea that the great oz will take care of us.
Private insurance (the way it is currently legislated) has not achieved affordable care. That is exactly why we are having this dabate. Also, whatever strides in that area insurance has made (and they have done some interesting things), the governement is not bound by the same rules. Since they are not required to show a profit, they do not have to collect as much money (for health care) as they spend on it. That is, they don’t have to balance the books. They can promise to spend less than actual costs. They have expropriation powers, so they can sustain deficit spending longer than a private corporation. But nothing can sustain them forever.
There are many studies indicating that comparign health care systems is much much much more complicated than simply looking at longevity or infant mortality rates. Some indicate that while European countries pay similar amounts compared to America, they do not get the same sort of health care. So, unless you have several sources to contradict me, overall costs will NOT be lower. Think of it this way; if health care were free or artificially very cheap, will the number of people turning up at doctors offices go up or down? The point being that the total amount we spend on health care would most definately not stay the same. It would almost have to go up.
Look, I think the stated goals of both sides of this issue are worth considering. People need less expensive access to medical attention. This may involve increasing the number of choices for nedical care as well as finding new ways to finance that care. Meanwhile we should not throw away the incentives for inovation in the medical industry.
Also, we need to find new ways for people to pay for health care. We need to divorce our health insurance purchases from our employer. The current tax structure practically requires (or at least heavily encourages) you to get health insurance from an employer. We need to stop calling it medical insurance when it is really just payment leveling. Medical savings accounts do a much better job of leveling payments and controling costs.This is a cite with information on medical savings accounts.
Finally, we cannot afford to lose the profit motive which drives the development of medical technologies and new drugs in America.
Unfortunately, governement subsidized health care will fail on all of these fronts. It amounts to a promise to provide doctors to more people without a means to achieve that goal.
Personally speaking, I don’t want anyone else to pay for my health care. Insurance is somewhat of a neccessary evil, but an acceptable one, since I can control what plan I get, and ergo control my health care. But I don’t want the government doing it for three reasons:
They will tax the hell out of me for it. I’d much rather pay myself at the level I choose.
They will then control what treatments are available and when I get them. This is unacceptable.
I strongly suspect it would, in the long run, actually make things worse for the poor by stifling experimentation and new discoveries, and give the government too much bargaining power with companies.
The fact is that very, very few people in the US cannot get health care. Mostly, they have decided that such things are not important enough to them to buy it. I’ve made that same choice over short terms, but I couldn’t blame anyone else if I got hurt or sick.
The problems of having people without access are more expensive for all, and the Cato institute can keep on throwing smoke on the situation, people are preferring to find other solutions when private enterprise has failed for so long to grant access to all.
I posted a longer and more vitriolic response but the hamsters ate it. Perhaps they were looking out for us.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**Again, government-subsidized health care is not the only way to reach universal health care access.
If I gave this impression, then I appologize. I never meant to imply or infer that support for socialized medicine is declining. Personally, I think that the amount of support for an idea is not rellevant to that idea’s correctness.
Lack of insurance is NOT the same as lack of access.
Could you at least look at one of the studies I linked to from Cato? Either in this thread ot the last one we participated in? If they are so untrustworthy, then their arguments should be trivial to refute. I won’t go so far as asking that you refute all of them, (I don’t agree with everything they say in any event) but simply claiming that they are lying because they have money is not a valid refutation.
doesn’t this clash with your first paragraph above? If government subsidies are “not the only way” to achieve universal health care, and “people are preferring to find other solutions when private enterprise has failed”, what is the other possibility?
That quote contains lines that are not mine. Anyhow, I already mentioned that I agree that lack of insurance is NOT the same as lack of access. You keep repeating this like it would support your position against universal care, and it doesn’t.
The Maine effort was a bipartisan effort; I trust that whatever occurred during the decision process that the opinions of the Cato institute were considered. I am only using context here, similar solutions like Cato proposed, were considered and essentially rejected.
I am a pragmatist first, the same solution will not fit all states, and nevertheless more states are looking at solving this problem. You have an ideology that is clouding sincere efforts to give access to health to everyone. It is foolish to ignore that powerful interests are very active trying to prevent change.
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
1A) Yes. I goofed the markups. Had to happen eventually I guess. The second paragraph in the quote is my response to the first paragraph which is a quote from you. Specifically, it asks for a reference to any plan implemented or not which does not rely on government subsidies. Not completely without them, just one that does not rely on them. Hopefully also one that you consider universal health care.
1B) Yes. But you keep spouting the same " people without access" propaganda. I keep calling you on it. If you can find another phrase, or stop equating the problem of “no access” with those without insurance, I’ll stop complaining.
2)I’m not sure what you mean by this. I asked about Cato because you have a habbit of waving your hads with vague references to industry finances or something and then discounting all of the figures contained in them. I don’t know what the question had to do with Maine.
3)Well, {refraining of returning the ideological bias jab} I think of myself as an objectivist. So, I do have an ideological objection to statism. However, the final arbiter of what is right is what works. If it is reasonable to believe that universal health care will improve conditions for everyone, then I’m all for it. However, that case has yet to be demonstrated.
There are several aspects of the universal health care plans I have heard of which do not seem to pass the smell test. Invariably they seem to involve the government (usually the federal government) taking over (either explicitly or in effect) the health care industry, or at least the health insurance industry. Virtually no consideration is given to maintaining the free enterprise system we have in America, and even less thought is given to maintaining the choice and quality that the vast majority of Americans now enjoy. In effect they promise lower costs and more product without any reference to how they will achieve this.
In an earlier post I proposed to 3 things which could be done to improve health care in America. Namely Increase production (by lowering the barriers to entering the market), increase ability to pay for demand as well as control (by supporting medical savings accounts) and supporting the profit motives which gave us the medical inovations we all (the whole world) enjoy. To these proposals your only response was “the Cato institute can keep on throwing smoke”. Now, it is possible that you thought I was only proposing those ideas because I say them on Cato’s web site. This is not the case. I saw them there, and linked to policy papers which explain them in too much detail, but I really would like a response on the proposals themselves.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wouldn’t you know it, I agree with the last quote of King, it doesn’t exclude the other one.
If the case for your position had been demonstrated, it would have been implemented everywhere. All I am saying is that other methods are there, and they are not being phased off.
I am just being logical here, with a bipartisan group, for sure all your policy papers were seen, not much was left of them in the final plan.
