B
BamaRider
Guest
And this is the system y’all want me to surrender my BCBS over to?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
First, the gigantic tax funded bureaucracy you refer to is only going to get bigger under any sort of universal health program.I apologize for not reading all of the thread. Maybe someone mentioned the points I’m about to bring up.
I worked for a while as a Medicaide (Medi-Cal in California) eligibility worker. My eyes were opened. America presently has a huge tax funded bureacracy working to systematically determine if someone should get government funded health care benefits. Caseloads are heavy and many, many workers are employed doing complicated work in a system that, frankly, is a ridiculous way of going about making sure the poor, elderly, young, and handicaped can pay for medical care. Many poor adults fall through the cracks of the system because they don’t have children. If clients don’t complete forms properly, or if they don’t give proper varification of information, they can be denied after a certain period of time. But then they can reapply. If the client is approved, but failed to appear for a scheduled meeting their benefits can be taken away. But then they can reapply. To me this is just a hugely funded merry-go-round. So - why don’t just do this thing the simple way? I mean there must be something better than this? The only problem is thousands and thousands of eligibility workers would be put out of work.
Another thing the present system of health care for the poor does is put women seeking Medicaide to pay for abortions as top priority. The reason, I was told, is actually to protect the health of mother and baby - if mom wants an abortion she is less likely to get the proper care by putting it off. The irony is, at least in California, the fetus is looked at as a life. A pregnant woman who wants to carry the baby to term is also given top priority. So why are we paying for the fetus, the baby, to be destroyed?
Other people with more pressing health or financial issues should not be put on hold because of abortion. An example of something that happens is an intake worker has a case with an elderly person that she/he is working on that day. Kind of complicated but needs to be taken care of soon. A woman who wants an abortion shows up in the lobby and applies for benefits to be used for an abortion. She is assigned to that worker right away and the worker has to put the case (and 80 others that she is working on) on hold while she works to get the benefits approved to be used for the case of the woman who wants an abortion. I had no idea that went on until I did the work. So I was quite happy when it didn’t work out.
I think our present system is a waste and we need something else.
Second, and more importantly, I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying- tell me if I have this right.
In your experience working with the socialized medicine programs in California, you have observed that women seeking abortions are given higher priority than people with other health priorities in order for them to have their abortion sooner rather than having to wait.
The reason for putting abortion seekers to the top of the list is because it is viewed as a compassionate practice for the mother and the baby, because they would rather that a woman aborts her child today than have to risk going without prenatal care for any period of time?
If I have understood this correctly, then I would like to add your post to my long list of reasons for being opposed to any sort of socialized medicine program.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Those are nice quotes, here are some of my favorites:“You can never get enough of what you don’t need to make you happy.”
Eric Hoffer.
“There must be more to life than having everything!”
Maurice Sendak.
“Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **** we don’t need.”
Chuck Palahniuk.
People need health care.
“The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.”
– Harry Browne
“They rage against Materialism, as they call it, forgetting that there has been no material improvement that has not spiritualized the world.”
– Oscar Wilde
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”
– Frederic Bastiat
“The function of socialism is to raise suffering to a higher level.”
– Norman Mailer
“In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.”
– Voltaire
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
– Winston Churchill
“A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”
– George Bernard Shaw
“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
– Ayn Rand
“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
– Ronald Reagan
and here is one of my favorites:
“You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
– Rev. William J. H. Boetcker
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Wanting universal health care doesn’t make you a socialist. It means you acknowledge that our health care is one of the worst in the free world and thus want to adopt a system that works.
I bring this up again because no refutation has been offered:
I bring this up again because no refutation has been offered:
I’m irked by the “socialism is bad!” people, since they seem to disregard the facts in favor of philosophy.
We ranked 37th in health care in the world: below every single developed nation (the CIA considers only 35 nations to be developed). Nine levels below Saudi Arabia. (Source). We’re the only developed country in the entire world that doesn’t give free health care to all of our citizens.
We pay over $600 more per person than Canada does. (Source). However, we still have 47 million people uninsured; 16% of Americans don’t have health care. (Source)
60% of all doctors in the United States supports universal health care. (Source.)
Universal health care will save up to $280 billion per year in administrative costs. (Source) Lack of health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. (Source.) Therefore; universal health care will both decrease the amount of money we need in taxes, reduce bankruptcy and increase trade because millions of people will not be in serious debt or poverty.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That’s because you’re begging the question. You’re asking us to accept that our problems are due to lack of government control, in order to prove that government control will solve them.Wanting universal health care doesn’t make you a socialist. It means you acknowledge that our health care is one of the worst in the free world and thus want to adopt a system that works.
I bring this up again because no refutation has been offered:
Yet you’ve seen people with hands-on experience tell you that the present government-run system is a shambles. Make it bigger, and you make it worse.
Why not go with Medical Savings Accounts? Let people control their own destinies, and help the poor based on their proven need.
S
sodak
Guest
This has been soundly refuted. The measures that were used are completely invalid, and were juggled to achieve the result of making universal (socialized) health care look good. It is failing dramatically in many countries around the world as we speak.Wanting universal health care doesn’t make you a socialist. It means you acknowledge that our health care is one of the worst in the free world and thus want to adopt a system that works.
I bring this up again because no refutation has been offered:
Check out these links:
jewishworldreview.com/0807/stossel082207.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel091207.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel091907.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel092507.php3
I don’t believe in the ends justifying the means. If UHC worked, I would at least be tempted to see what about it worked, and think about integrating that part into our health care system. It doesn’t even rate a yawn, IMO.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Let us look at Lasik surgery, and someone with more details came jump in and help. How is it the price of this medical operation is like LCD TVs- steadily declining, when everything else in health care rises? What dynamics are in play, and why can’t it be applied acrosss the system?
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Exactly, it is dubious, at best, to claim that 60% of doctors in the US favor UHC just because 59% of a select group of doctors in Indiana from specific specialties think so.This has been soundly refuted. The measures that were used are completely invalid, and were juggled to achieve the result of making universal (socialized) health care look good. It is failing dramatically in many countries around the world as we speak.
Check out these links:
jewishworldreview.com/0807/stossel082207.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel091207.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel091907.php3
jewishworldreview.com/0907/stossel092507.php3
I don’t believe in the ends justifying the means. If UHC worked, I would at least be tempted to see what about it worked, and think about integrating that part into our health care system. It doesn’t even rate a yawn, IMO.
100% of the doctors and nurses in my extended family believe that UHC is a bad idea. I wouldn’t try to pretend that is a statistically significant sample, though.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Exactly, I posted this out many many posts ago as the perfect example of how the free market will make medical procedures widely available when such procedures are not regulated by government or insurance.Let us look at Lasik surgery, and someone with more details came jump in and help. How is it the price of this medical operation is like LCD TVs- steadily declining, when everything else in health care rises? What dynamics are in play, and why can’t it be applied acrosss the system?
B
BamaRider
Guest
Is it because this is not a insurance procedure?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Primarily because people pay for it themselves and shop for good prices. That induces competition into the market!Let us look at Lasik surgery, and someone with more details came jump in and help. How is it the price of this medical operation is like LCD TVs- steadily declining, when everything else in health care rises? What dynamics are in play, and why can’t it be applied acrosss the system?
C
cynic
Guest
It would be better for those on low incomes die than receive care via taxpayer funding.That’s the problem with utilitarianism: there is no consideration of how something is achieved, only the end result is important. If you want to go more in depth with utilitarianism vs Christianity, start your own thread; let’s not derail this one.
It would be better for those without the means to shut-up disapear into a corner somewhere and drop dead than for the state to forcibly take .01% of your income, or anyone else’s.
C
cynic
Guest
In the context here, utilitarianism is about acheiving the greatest good for everyone, every individual, not just a majority.Utilitarian ethics are based on the idea that “the good” can be defined as that which maximizes happiness and minimizes unhappiness. This is called the “principle of greatest happiness.” While this may sound nice on the surface, two of the many problems with utilitarianism are that it cannot be applied uniformly because it is highly relativistic, and that the application of utilitarianism in social groups becomes a vehicle to justify the subjugation of one group by the enforcement of a condition which simultaneously causes pleasure to a larger group and pain to a smaller group.
Therefore, under utilitarianism, no value is absolute. For example, it would be justifiable, according to utilitarian ethics, for a family of four to use a slave, because 4 people are made happy, and only 1 person is made unhappy. Therefore, there is a net gain of happiness in that family.
It should be obvious that this is a flawed system because no amount of happiness for that family can justify the fact that they have enslaved a human being.
If a pure market system can’t deliver for a large number of working people, then it is flawed.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Thank you for showing just how cynical and uncaring you are.It would be better for those on low incomes die than receive care via taxpayer funding.
It would be better for those without the means to shut-up disapear into a corner somewhere and drop dead than for the state to forcibly take .01% of your income, or anyone else’s.
Of course, I have proposed MSAs, with assistance for the poor, based on their income. I care about the poor. I care so much I am not willing to throw them on the mercy of an incompetent bureaucracy.
C
cynic
Guest
You have proposed that, yes. Others don’t want the state to take one bit of their incomes, no matter how little, even if it could be used effectively.Thank you for showing just how cynical and uncaring you are.
Of course, I have proposed MSAs, with assistance for the poor, based on their income. I care about the poor. I care so much I am not willing to throw them on the mercy of an incompetent bureaucracy.
They call it utilitarianism, and those who agree with it are as bad as Stalin.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The issue is, does the state use the money it takes effectively? The evidence is that it does not.You have proposed that, yes. Others don’t want the state to take one bit of their incomes, no matter how little, even if it could be used effectively.
The only person I know on these forums who promotes utilitarianism is a guy who goes by the name of rybozome.They call it utilitarianism, and those who agree with it are as bad as Stalin.
B
BamaRider
Guest
Just think what the church could do with the same money the govt garnishes from working people, therefore not allowing us a choice in how to help those in need.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
As I pointed out, we take a $10,000 grant from Catholic Charities for disaster relief and triple it – we buy the fixins for a fish fry, sell tickets and then are able to give out $3 for every $1 in the grant.Just think what the church could do with the same money the govt garnishes from working people, therefore not allowing us a choice in how to help those in need.
Let’s see the government triple the money they take in on taxes, and spend nothing on overhead when disbursing it!!
C
Caesar517
Guest
I don’t want anyone to die. I want to help them with the best means available: charity.It would be better for those on low incomes die than receive care via taxpayer funding.
It would be better for those without the means to shut-up disapear into a corner somewhere and drop dead than for the state to forcibly take .01% of your income, or anyone else’s.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Amen – charity administerd by people who care, not bureaucrats.I don’t want anyone to die. I want to help them with the best means available: charity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.