Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rozellelily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t say treatment is beyond affordability except but in the United States…When a young mother has to worry about what they will do with mortgage payments due to a new DX of cancer, vs staying alive for her husband and small children, Houston…We have a problem. The selfishness in not seeing a government option for affordable health care hurts those that need it most. The United States is the only post industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t have a universal health care option.
 
DENNYINMI said:
I wouldn’t say treatment is beyond affordability except but in the United States…When a young mother has to worry about what they will do with mortgage payments due to a new DX of cancer, vs staying alive for her husband and small children, Houston…We have a problem. The selfishness in not seeing a government option for affordable health care hurts those that need it most. The United States is the only post industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t have a universal health care option.
Click to expand...
And those countries with universal health care are now moving to impose euthanasia upon those who are too much of a drain on the health system. Nothing like dying with dignity because the state decides you are no longer of much use to it or too expensive to keep alive and kicking.

Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
 
Last edited:
Never in my life have I eaten fried squirrel. Had it offered, but it looks too much like a cooked cat to me. Put me off my appetite.

Among country people at the time, it was extremely common to eat wild game, including some things one might question as “wild game” like groundhogs and snapping turtles.
 
Man that you have stories to tell!
A source of hours of entertainment for your grandchildren,I guess.
Fried squirrel really sounded…odd.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
And those countries with universal health care are now moving to impose euthanasia upon those who are too much of a drain on the health system. Nothing like dying with dignity because the state decides you are no longer of much use to it or to expensive to keep alive and kicking.

Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Click to expand...
I think those countries are figuring out that medical care is an expensive, therefore scarce, resource. But it’s also a myth that they all provide this wonderful level of care for free. They don’t.

I haven’t studied them all, but I did study the French system a bit. It’s a two-tier system. About 2/3 of it is public and 1/3 (the better third) is private. The government is “hands off” with the private segment, so what happens there is pretty much unknown, including the costs. So French “costs” are only those in the public sector. Saying French medical care is “cheaper” is therefore misleading. That’s true of a number of developed countries.

You pay for care up front yourself except hospital care. You then bill the government and the government (you hope) reimburses at about 80%. Illegal aliens get no reimbursement. There are a lot of meds you can’t get unless perhaps you’re in the private system. Lots of the meds are made in places like Bangladesh. Might be okay. Might not be.
 
graciew said:
Fried squirrel really sounded…odd.
Click to expand...
No few people still eat it. They claim they like it, and maybe they do. I don’t know of anyone who eats groundhog anymore, though.

And you’re right. Young kids now really are fascinated by how primitive things used to be here. But even more interesting to them are the stories the old timers told us when we were kids.
 
I am not into euthanasia nor the death penalty. The right to life would include from conception to grave and all in between life as we know it. I believe in a universal health care option because it is the right thing to do and is a positive directive from Catholic social teaching that our American Bishops have endorsed since the early 1900’s. The medical model was initially not founded on economics as it’s stronghold. Insurance was seen as a sign of simply having a good job at one time along with retirement and that has been replaced by privatization and a middle man obtaining a big paycheck. Health care decisions should be between a patient and doctor, not the decision of a bean counter for a big insurance agency, something it was never the main focus of since it’s inception. One catastrophic medical unknown and a person or family can loose everything. I “pool” my car insurance in the same way and have no problem with that. Mr. Jones can have an accident and cause a 10 car pile up, it will not raise my insurance. Health care could easily work the same way but do to some sort of me me me, bootstrap mentality it’s baulked at…No sir. I believe in a common insurance, it makes sense. Besides, the Bishops had it right over 100 years ago.
 
DENNYINMI said:
I am not into euthanasia nor the death penalty. The right to life would include from conception to grave and all in between life as we know it. I believe in a universal health care option because it is the right thing to do and is a positive directive from Catholic social teaching that our American Bishops have endorsed since the early 1900’s. The medical model was initially not founded on economics as it’s stronghold. Insurance was seen as a sign of simply having a good job at one time along with retirement and that has been replaced by privatization and a middle man obtaining a big paycheck. Health care decisions should be between a patient and doctor, not the decision of a bean counter for a big insurance agency, something it was never the main focus of since it’s inception. One catastrophic medical unknown and a person or family can loose everything. I “pool” my car insurance in the same way and have no problem with that. Mr. Jones can have an accident and cause a 10 car pile up, it will not raise my insurance. Health care could easily work the same way but do to some sort of me me me, bootstrap mentality it’s baulked at…No sir. I believe in a common insurance, it makes sense. Besides, the Bishops had it right over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...
Note that car and home insurance are provided, not by the state, but private carriers. So your argument doesn’t exactly point to universal, state sponsored, health care. It points towards the affordability and availability of health insurance.

I live in Canada, and besides the 30%+ of our provincial and federal taxes that go to health care, we also pay ~$400 per month for extended health family coverage for things not included in the provincial plan: dental, vision, pharmaceuticals, etc.
 
HarryStotle said:
Note that car and home insurance are provided, not by the state, but private carriers. So your argument doesn’t exactly point to universal, state sponsored, health care. It points towards the affordability and availability of health insurance.
Click to expand...
It’s meant to be distinguished as a similarity to how it’s funded. Everyone gives, everyone has a share in the stake when the chips are down. We need a universal option. For those that can afford the private health care and it’s current premiums, let them keep it. As I was discussing, there need not be a choice between your mortgage or medication detrimental to health. The Bishops have it right.
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Note that car and home insurance are provided, not by the state, but private carriers. So your argument doesn’t exactly point to universal, state sponsored, health care. It points towards the affordability and availability of health insurance.
Click to expand...
Everyone gives, everyone has a share in the stake when the chips are down.
Click to expand...
This is counter to what I have read from those supporting Universal Healthcare. Are you saying everybody pays something, or is it to be funded by the finite group of current taxpayers?
 
It’s a choice on where I’d like my tax dollars to go. My tax dollars are already going to our veterans and I have no problem with that…When everyone contributes (hence the term universal) everyone benefits. Similar to the medicare for all option that’s spoken of in circles, I do indeed support that option. For those that complain the wait lines would be too long, the care would be sub-par somehow, on and on…Allow private companies to continue, and if one is wealthy enough to continue to utilize one of these mega-giant profiteers, let them. Israel has managed to utilize Universal Health care while maintaining private health insurance companies…they have very good health care. Smart people!~
 
Last edited:
DENNYINMI said:
It’s a choice on where I’d like my tax dollars to go. My tax dollars are already going to our veterans and I have no problem with that…When everyone contributes (hence the term universal) everyone benefits. Similar to the medicare for all option that’s spoken of in circles, I do indeed support that option. For those that complain the wait lines would be too long, the care would be sub-par somehow, on and on…Allow private companies to continue, and if one is wealthy enough to continue to utilize one of these mega-giant profiteers, let them. Israel has managed to utilize Universal Health care while maintaining private health insurance companies…they have very good health care. Smart people!~
Click to expand...
  1. But everyone will not be contributing…even just a very small amount. It will be a finite group of taxpayers. Thus when something is “free” to some, they have no skin in the game to keep costs down.
  2. I keep hearing about how great universal health care is in other countries…fine…test their system in a city or county or even a state first. Simply implementing across the entire country without testing to see if it will work here is a recipe for disaster.
 
A look at the Israel plan (simple enough to do through google) demonstrates an exemplary plan, and they are highly technological with advanced medical procedures rating higher than the U.S. (even though most countries rank higher than the U.S.)…it is impressive. They maintain a “basket” of the basics all persons should have. No one is denied and pre-existing conditions do not come into question. For those wishing additional services not within the “basket” of essentials, let them pay for it which even then is a minimal cost. WE do better than doing nothing at all.
WE don’t need to re-invent the wheel, there are exemplary plans that people using ingenuity have put into place already.
One thing I respect in Israel’s health care is the institution of a Health Care Minister…They decide the fundamentals of health care vs an insurance agent with a mentality geared towards their employer for profit. Take a look, it doesn’t hurt, I promise.
 
Last edited:
It offers a plan. It’s called hope with the promise of something better than what we have right now. We should be looking at what is effective and see if we can adapt it, or even improve upon it.
I’d love to sit here and talk to the pessimistic faction all day but…
 
DENNYINMI said:
It offers a plan. It’s called hope with the promise of something better than what we have right now. We should be looking at what is effective and see if we can adapt it, or even improve upon it.
I’d love to sit here and talk to the pessimistic faction all day but…
Click to expand...
Plans that work are not built on “hope”.

You keep wanting me to look past the US government’s track record of financial irresponsibility, well, uh, on every program it ever runs.

Its easy to be hopeful with other people’s money…
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Note that car and home insurance are provided, not by the state, but private carriers. So your argument doesn’t exactly point to universal, state sponsored, health care. It points towards the affordability and availability of health insurance.
Click to expand...
It’s meant to be distinguished as a similarity to how it’s funded. Everyone gives, everyone has a share in the stake when the chips are down. We need a universal option. For those that can afford the private health care and it’s current premiums, let them keep it. As I was discussing, there need not be a choice between your mortgage or medication detrimental to health. The Bishops have it right.
Click to expand...
So are you advocating for home and car insurance to be government run and taxpayer funded?

The point – which you seem to have walked right past – is that since car and home insurance work perfectly well being privately provided by insurance companies, there is no reason that health care couldn’t also be thus provided.

As soon as government gets involved the cost of provision goes way up – as university tuition has because the government has taken over student loans and dictating policy and enrollment, thus artificially inflating the cost of being educated – and that not even with any degree of efficacy.
 
KMC said:
Plans that work are not built on “hope”.

You keep wanting me to look past the US government’s track record of financial irresponsibility, well, uh, on every program it ever runs.

Its easy to be hopeful with other people’s money…
Click to expand...
YIKES…smh…the level of understanding for purposes of analogy is astounding…😜
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
So are you advocating for home and car insurance to be government run and taxpayer funded?
Click to expand...
My God, smh…
Click to expand...
So, let’s try to sort out the intellectual mess you seem to think is clear and compelling.

You said…
DENNYINMI said:
I “pool” my car insurance in the same way and have no problem with that. Mr. Jones can have an accident and cause a 10 car pile up, it will not raise my insurance. Health care could easily work the same way but do to some sort of me me me, bootstrap mentality it’s baulked at…No sir. I believe in a common insurance, it makes sense. Besides, the Bishops had it right over 100 years ago.
Click to expand...
So, you seem to be advocating for “pooling” everyone’s health insurance in the same way that car and home insurance are currently “pooled.”

Now, granted, you did stipulate that you had problems with letting some private “bean counter” make your health care decisions for you.
DENNYINMI said:
Health care decisions should be between a patient and doctor, not the decision of a bean counter for a big insurance agency, something it was never the main focus of since it’s inception. One catastrophic medical unknown and a person or family can loose everything.
Click to expand...
So the problem left unresolved by you is that while you have issues with leaving a medical decision in the hands of a “bean counter for a big insurance agency,” you seem to have no problems leaving medical decisions in the hands of bureaucratic bean counters doing the dirty work for political ideologues who have less accountability while certain parties are in office than private sector bean counters.

You seem to think that government sponsored health care leaves all medical decisions up to a doctor and patient. Clearly, you don’t live in a state which provides “common insurance,” and have some idealistic notion about what is involved.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top