A
anthony022071
Guest
Poor people do get free health care if they need it,including illegal aliens. You don’t see poor people left sick and dying in the streets for lack of access to health care.
- Status
V
vsedriver
Guest
None of them at all? How convenient.
V
vsedriver
Guest
and where is that written exactly?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
V
vsedriver
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
I don’t believe you.
Are you calling me dishonest?
False dicotomy. Bad logic.
So you say. where is your evidence?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The evidence has been given and ignored in favour of bias. If you are honest I challenge you to find the evidence for yourself. I refuse to waste my time with dishonest people.
D
davidv
Guest
N
Nate13
Guest
This is all incredibly predictable. When virtue declines people turn to a benevolent dictator to save them. Popular government requires virtue to succeed. Some are embracing liberalism which is increasing the size of government at the same rate that it works to destroy virtue in society. We should be standing up to immorality and promoting the cause of virtue to people, not forcing it upon them by the hand of an ever more powerful central government. Look to who is fighting for the spirit of America and fighting to bring back morality and embrace our Christian heritage. This is the manner in which America will be saved. 33% of all new born babies are born out of wedlock, which is one of the leading causes of poverty in this country. A lack of morality and virtue in this country is the true cause of all its problems and anyone who believes the answer to that is the government forcing it upon the people is asking for tyranny.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The evidence is there, and has been posted, so your threat does not fade me in the slightest.Reported for uncharitable name calling.
More bad logic.
A
anthony022071
Guest
But you can’t guarantee that the government will provide proper health care,and there is no separate reserve of tax money that goes to health care anyway. Funds are fungible.
Do you also not have a problem with the government having improper involvement in people’s lives and mandating abortion and euthanasia?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
An indifferent form of capitalism necessarily leads to dependency on the state in-order to achieve a basic degree of dignity for those who are marginalised and oppressed by the market place. Its unavoidable and necessary so long as we stick to a form of capitalism that promotes the trend of extreme indifferent individualism in economic matters except in cases where some form of profit to business is attainable.
Is it or is it not your position that the state should let people die if they cannot get sufficient health care via other financial means?
O
Onegin
Guest
I often hear US folks speaking fondly of the NHS as a model for healthcare coverage in Europe, so I thought I would chime in. As someone who lived for a number of years in Britain with “free”/socialised/government-funded/taxpayer-funded (pick your poison) healthcare via the NHS, perhaps I can help out with a couple of clarifications.
And that’s all I have to say on that.
- It’s been said already, but nothing, economically speaking, is “free” so we shouldn’t be using that term. The healthcare may be “free” to the party receiving it in the sense that they pay nothing, but that care still carries a significant economic cost that must be borne by either the individual, the healthcare provider (assuming it is some sort of private benefit or paid for by the government (most typically via the taxpayer). It is childish to think that just because you don’t pay for something that it doesn’t cost anything. You merely pass the costs along, and often incur further costs in the process. Come on guys, I learned this stuff in 5th grade, it’s sad to see adults actually believe the rhetoric.
- Secondly, many economists generally agree that when a government provides a service via mandate or regulation, that service will be a) more expensive and b) more inefficient than providing the service through non-regulatory means. This isn’t an argument against all mandates or regulations, but rather it is intended to show that it is usually more efficient to provide a service through non-regulatory means or mandate, where possible. Despite emotional claims to the contrary, a top-down approach does always mean more benefit to the poor, but practically speaking, it means more bureaucracy, which can often mean LESS benefit to the recipient of the goods or services. Healthcare is no exception.
- The National Health Service (NHS) is the world’s third largest employer, right behind the Chinese Army. 1 in 23 Britains work for it. It employs a massive amount of people, costs an enormous amount of money, and delivers a frighteningly low quality of healthcare to show for it. Sure, primary care is decent, and if you don’t like your primary care doctor in your “catchment area” (kind of like an assigned Dr.) you can request to go to another. But the real fun comes when you need what is considered to be “non-emergency” treatment, because you’ll fall into an endless queue behind those other people in more critical conditions. There are private hospitals too, and they tend to be seen as a comfortable alternative for those who can afford them, though they don’t recieve the massive amount of research money that the NHS hospitals do.
- Everything the NHS does is about cost-cutting from the pills your doctor is allowed to recommend, to the number of days you spend in the hospital. Physicians make very few decisions regarding patient care, they must adhere to the NHS guidelines when diagnosing, prescribing and recommending treatment. And the decision-making party (the government) is operating on a purely cost-benefit analysis. If it costs more to prescribe your medicine, and there is no generic available, you don’t get it. Sure, it’s nice that your pills only cost £7.50 no matter what (waivable if you don’t have the £!) but a lot of Britains travel to the US so that they at least have the option to purchase expensive, name-brand drugs.
- The equipment in many NHS hospitals is still floating around from the 50’s and 60’s. My NHS doctor once commented on how nice it must be for me to be able to stay in the modernised hospitals/Doctor’s offices in the US, as the NHS does not approve the purchase of new medical devices that are not deemed critical or necessary. Hospital beds are often still the old, metal rung-style, they adjust like lawn chairs. Patients are sometimes crammed together in rooms or in hallways if the quota is high. Sometimes people are turned away if the care is not deemed critical.
And that’s all I have to say on that.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
I tend to agree with MOM2’s general statement that Catholics should be for free health care for all. In fantasy land, where health care grows on trees, Catholics shouldn’t be pissed that folks are getting it for free. They should be thrilled. Also, if the government could provide this function of Fantasy Health Care Tree because private entities couldn’t do it, then we should be thrilled too.
I just don’t think the government is equipped or funded to do it. I pray they can do it. I pray that we can improve the care we get to the less fortunate. Maybe there’s a better way than forcing everyone to buy insurance and burdoning the already broken states with expanded health care obligations (which all sounds incredibly unconstitutional to me). Maybe it’s better just to raise taxes, expand medicare and medicaid, cut spending elsewhere, create mobile health care providers to get to the homeless, etc. I have no idea.
I also am unclear on what sort of health care we are called to ensure everyone gets. Certainly we don’t have a duty to provide people with “all health care.” If you are sad about your wrinkles, I don’t think we have a duty to ensure you get botox. Also, because we are an incredibly wealthy country, we certainly have an obligation to do more than just keep people teetering on the precipice of death and then releasing them back home.
I also think there is a big difference between providing care and providing insurance. I don’t think we have an obligation to provide insurance. We are obligated to care for them. I’m worried that the Government’s current plan expands insurance to everyone, but fails to actually save many of those people dying “without insurance.” Assuming it’s not actually struck down for being unconstitutional, it will be interesting to see how many of those 45,000 Americans who die without insurance will now simply die with insurance. How much increased care will they actually get. I’m rooting for people getting more care. Somethin’ good better come out of this.
I just don’t think the government is equipped or funded to do it. I pray they can do it. I pray that we can improve the care we get to the less fortunate. Maybe there’s a better way than forcing everyone to buy insurance and burdoning the already broken states with expanded health care obligations (which all sounds incredibly unconstitutional to me). Maybe it’s better just to raise taxes, expand medicare and medicaid, cut spending elsewhere, create mobile health care providers to get to the homeless, etc. I have no idea.
I also am unclear on what sort of health care we are called to ensure everyone gets. Certainly we don’t have a duty to provide people with “all health care.” If you are sad about your wrinkles, I don’t think we have a duty to ensure you get botox. Also, because we are an incredibly wealthy country, we certainly have an obligation to do more than just keep people teetering on the precipice of death and then releasing them back home.
I also think there is a big difference between providing care and providing insurance. I don’t think we have an obligation to provide insurance. We are obligated to care for them. I’m worried that the Government’s current plan expands insurance to everyone, but fails to actually save many of those people dying “without insurance.” Assuming it’s not actually struck down for being unconstitutional, it will be interesting to see how many of those 45,000 Americans who die without insurance will now simply die with insurance. How much increased care will they actually get. I’m rooting for people getting more care. Somethin’ good better come out of this.
G
Geist
Guest
Under US tax law you cannot get a write off for services donated, only material goods and cash.
tax-tips.us/2011/01/deducting-donated-time-or-services-in-a-business/
G
Geist
Guest
I feel professionally obligated to point out that in the US healthcare has been basically government run since the 1982 with the passage of TEFRA, which killed the old fee for service in favor of a prospective payment system, which all payors use today with a few exceptions.
As we say in the biz, “As goes CMS, so goes the nation”.
Basically in layman speak, whatever Medicare does, the third parties (private insurers) will copy.This goes from coverage, to coding, and reimbursement.
During the “Obamacare” debates I almost died laughing when that old lady asked Obama if “the federal government was going to take over my medicare” since its a federal program.
Also in a single payer system, no one is paying for “someones elses care”, you’re also paying your own.
Not sure if any of you provide insurance for a business, but I do, and I’d rather pay higher taxes than the ever increasing premiums I have to pay to give my people coverage. Reducing the profit incentive would go a long way to freeing up more cash for increasing access and paying doctors and facilities more. Ideally it should be revenue neutral.
As we say in the biz, “As goes CMS, so goes the nation”.
Basically in layman speak, whatever Medicare does, the third parties (private insurers) will copy.This goes from coverage, to coding, and reimbursement.
During the “Obamacare” debates I almost died laughing when that old lady asked Obama if “the federal government was going to take over my medicare” since its a federal program.
Also in a single payer system, no one is paying for “someones elses care”, you’re also paying your own.
Not sure if any of you provide insurance for a business, but I do, and I’d rather pay higher taxes than the ever increasing premiums I have to pay to give my people coverage. Reducing the profit incentive would go a long way to freeing up more cash for increasing access and paying doctors and facilities more. Ideally it should be revenue neutral.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Nobody argued that it doesn’t cost anything
- It’s been said already, but nothing, economically speaking, is “free” so we shouldn’t be using that term. The healthcare may be “free” to the party receiving it in the sense that they pay nothing, but that care still carries a significant economic cost that must be borne by either the individual, the healthcare provider (assuming it is some sort of private benefit or paid for by the government (most typically via the taxpayer). It is childish to think that just because you don’t pay for something that it doesn’t cost anything. You merely pass the costs along, and often incur further costs in the process. Come on guys, I learned this stuff in 5th grade, it’s sad to see adults actually believe the rhetoric.
.Is that all you guys have? A continuous wave of strawmen.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Lol!! Nobody here is arguing that people should be taxed so that the person next door can get cosmetic surgery on her bum-cheeks. That’s obviously ridiculous.
J
Jeremiah1278
Guest
Lol!! Nobody here is arguing that people should be taxed so that the person next door can get cosmetic surgery on her bum-cheeks. That’s obviously ridiculous.
Agreed! That one’s silly.I’m wondering, though, if our moral obligation to provide health care to all people would go beyond basic health care. Meaning, if your pollen allergy gives you deathly asthma attacks, we should provide you with an inhaler, but are we obligated provide folks with allergy shots if their allergies are just sort of an annoyance in their daily life? Is nearsightedness a medical condition for which we are obligated to provide laser surgery? Contact lenses? Glasses?
So I need to do more educating on this topic. But we are certainly called to ensure everyone gets at least basic health care, whatever that means.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I never said it was a right for me to pay for your healthcare. But I did say it was a right for everyone to be able to receive healthcare.
- Status