Universal health insurance

[vern_humphrey]

Just wanted to let folks know on this thread that I am out of the hospital as of today. I’m pretty roughed up, I don’t know if I’ll be able to work again, but my brain is okay (or as okay as it ever was ) and that’s what counts as far as I’m concerned

Welcome back. We’ve been praying for you.

 

[pathia]

Welcome back. We’ve been praying for you.

Thank you!

 

[Oscarthecat]

Originally Posted by rtconstant
So again it would seem that the primary argument against national healthcare boils down to the belief that the US government could not responsibly provide it. I still can’t figure out why that no one just comes out and says it?

That’s not my argument! Where in the Constitution does the Govt. get the right to force it upon me? That’s my primary objection.

If I have a problem with a company, I can change or take them to court, refuse to pay, or whatever. If I have a problem with the govt.(and refuse to pay), I go to jail. That’s called coersion.

Exactly where does the govt. have the right to do this? NOWHERE! Stay out of my healthcare business!!! I’ll eat all the Big Macs that I want to, by the way!!!

If you’re against UHC, then it really doesn’t matter what your position is- Eventually, they’re going to twist your position to accuse you of hating poor people so much you would rather let sick people die than help them.

I will take responsibility for the position that the US government is ill equipped to provide adequate healthcare to the entire population- with the correction that it is not only one reason I oppose UHC, and most certainly is not the foundation of my position that UHC is a bad idea.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Just wanted to let folks know on this thread that I am out of the hospital as of today. I’m pretty roughed up, I don’t know if I’ll be able to work again, but my brain is okay (or as okay as it ever was ) and that’s what counts as far as I’m concerned

Glad to see that you’re back among us!

Unfortunately, this discussion has not made much progress since you were last here

 

[cynic]

No one is supposed to believe they are worthless.No one is worthless.

But people certainly begin to feel that way when they are made to believe that they are completely dependent upon the government for their basic needs, and are told by those running for office that no one but the government cares enough to help them, and that the only way people will hand over the money to help them is in response to the threat of government force.

Well it seemed like you think they should believe themselves worthless, because the money comes from tax, via “government force”:doh2:

Again, it would be better, more ethical, to be dead than receive healthcare this way, right?

In the real world, removing any safety net and relying on charity will result in some people missing out on care. This is not acceptable in an afluent society, and although forced contribution is less than ideal, the alternative is worse. Keep in mind that in a marketplace that functioned properly, and with everyone supporting themselves as best they can (separate issues) then the number of people requiring government subsidies would be relatively small.

 

[EphelDuath]

Why did you put “many” in quotes?

Because your argument is that nationalized businesses are somehow worse, pointing to how “many” of them are private/charity. Not all.

Oh, so instead of having ONE governmental body in control of my health, you propose that THREE governmental bodies will have control over my health.

The funny thing is that you accuse me of twisting your words later. But anyway: no. The federal government mandates that you must have insurance. This in no way means that they have control over it. Only the states would have control over it.

That’s exactly what the said about the "no child left behind"act-certain details would be left up to the states, or even the cities. But the federal government gets to decide which details are delegated, to whom, and what the possible choices are in making that decision.

It doesn’t have to be the same.

What are you talking about. What I was implying is that there are people in this country who do not get their water from the government.

Same thing here. “Many” do. Not all. If you are proposing that we completely privatize water, so that there are no public water fountains, then how the poor get water is up to charity. Obviously that would be dumb. It’s the same thing for health care.

Well, if it socialized education doesn’t work for us, then why would socialized medicine.

This is not to imply that education will never work, it just means that the current system is awful.

We are not europeans- what works for them, might not work for us. What works for us might not work for them.

I’m always befuddled when somebody makes that argument. We’re all human beings, aren’t we? It’s not like Europeans are fundamentally any different from Americans.

Wow, what a relief. I thought you were going to force me to pay for the Universal Health Care Program through taxation.

Hey!!! What???!!?!
You JUST SAID you weren’t going to force universal healthcare on me!!!
How can you completely reverse your position on something in mid paragraph???

You misunderstand. You will have to pay for UHC just like everybody else will. However, you can opt out of public doctors or hospitals if you want your own private health insurance.

What??
I need names, quotes, dates, etc for this otherwise I’ll assume you’re making it up.

People who believed in a national defense: Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Rush, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, Jefferson, …

Yes. I agree with you. Except about the “business” part- it isn’t a business, it is a government program.

So you agree: public ownership of something isn’t always bad. I am by no means a socialist, but I do think that government ownership of something doesn’t magically make it worse, just like the free-market doesn’t magically make something better.

No. I won’t restate all of them again for you to pick apart. I have restated my position repeatedly on this forum because people refuse to go back and read the posts.

Very well, then don’t rely on old posts as a rebuttal.

So, is “enjoyment” your criteria for what makes taxation fair?
If that’s the case, then I don’t enjoy being taxed for socialized medicine.

If you want the benefits of a national defense, then you have to pay for it. You can easily avoid this by moving to a country with lower taxes, but you certainly cannot simply not pay your taxes: because then you’re receiving the benefits of a free, safe country while others pay for it.

My point was: you find it morally objectionable to pay for something owned by the government. Therefore, simply by paying ANY taxes you are violating your own maxims, since you’re already funding public education.

 

[EphelDuath]

You have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. They speak for themselves and debunk the WHO report.

No, they don’t. The WHO is more credible than a libertarian with an agenda.

You really don’t understand the use of the term “human right”. We have to get the definitions sorted out first before any meaningful discussion can take place.

The Aristotelian definition of “human right” is something that one needs in order to function.

If you check the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” article 25, it reads “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”

You may not agree with the Declaration itself, but my point is that I’m not misusing the phrase “human rights.”

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s because they cheat, and throw the whole R&D cost back on the US taxpayer.

But generics cost more in Canada than in the US.

That’s accounted for in the statistics: we spend more per person than Canada does. R&D is a completely separate issue, of which we do pay more for.

What is misleading about it? I gotta post my W2? LOL. It’s a fact. I can assure ya no guy in Alabama that netted 63k income paid anything close to 29k in in taxes.

It’s misleading because you’re implying that since Canada has higher taxes and Canada also has UHC, that therefore, if we want UHC, we have to raise our taxes. That’s obviously not the case. In fact, many estimates suppose that UHC will end up being cheaper than what we’re already doing, because administrative costs will drop.

 

[BamaRider]

It’s misleading because you’re implying that since Canada has higher taxes and Canada also has UHC, that therefore, if we want UHC, we have to raise our taxes. That’s obviously not the case. In fact, many estimates suppose that UHC will end up being cheaper than what we’re already doing, because administrative costs will drop.

---

Do what?? I bet they told the folks in Canada same thing way back when. “Don’t worry we won’t raise your taxes to pay for this, we got it *all *worked out, the administration costs will be reduced, after we take it over.” In the history of govt that has NEVER happened. I defy ya to name one instance, where the govt reduced papwerwork or burearacy

You’re telling us the govt is gonna take over the ENTIRE healthcare system for almost 300 million people, and not raise taxes? Vern, what do y’all call this kinda thinkin over in Arkansas?

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/18.gif

 

[EphelDuath]

Do what?? I bet they told the folks in Canada same thing way back when. “Don’t worry we won’t raise your taxes to pay for this, we got it *all *worked out, the administration costs will be reduced, after we take it over.”

No, actually, but think whatever you want.

You’re telling us the govt is gonna take over the ENTIRE healthcare system for almost 300 million people, and not raise

citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1623

“The Medicare drug bill that Congress passed last month will only increase bureaucratic spending because it will funnel large amounts of public money through private insurance plans with high overhead.”

The process becomes more streamlined when we aren’t fumbling with statistics and private mechanisms.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Well it seemed like you think they should believe themselves worthless, because the money comes from tax, via “government force”:doh2:

Again, it would be better, more ethical, to be dead than receive healthcare this way, right?

Wow, you can’t help but keep accusing me of wanting people to die, can you.

If this discussion is going to go any further, you are going to have to accept that just because someone disagrees with you about HOW to help others doesn’t mean they don’t want to help others, much less see them dead.

In the real world, removing any safety net and relying on charity will result in some people missing out on care.

The implication here is that “government” is the safety net. But there are all kinds of safety nets in society- the government is ahuman construct, no more no less. But unlike voluntary human constructs, for some reason people believe the government is the last, best hope for humanity.

This is not acceptable in an afluent society, and although forced contribution is less than ideal, the alternative is worse.

Well , at least you’ve admitted that taxation is less than ideal. You are slowly coming out of the dark.

Keep in mind that in a marketplace that functioned properly, and with everyone supporting themselves as best they can (separate issues) then the number of people requiring government subsidies would be relatively small.

Hmmm, so strong economies result in more self-sufficient people? Thank you, I will keep that in mind.

 

[mary_bobo]

Do what?? I bet they told the folks in Canada same thing way back when. “Don’t worry we won’t raise your taxes to pay for this, we got it *all *worked out, the administration costs will be reduced, after we take it over.” In the history of govt that has NEVER happened. I defy ya to name one instance, where the govt reduced papwerwork or burearacy

You’re telling us the govt is gonna take over the ENTIRE healthcare system for almost 300 million people, and not raise taxes? Vern, what do y’all call this kinda thinkin over in Arkansas?

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/18.gif

In Tennessee we call it “fuzzy-headed”.

 

[mary_bobo]

That’s accounted for in the statistics: we spend more per person than Canada does. R&D is a completely separate issue, of which we do pay more for.

It’s misleading because you’re implying that since Canada has higher taxes and Canada also has UHC, that therefore, if we want UHC, we have to raise our taxes. That’s obviously not the case. In fact, many estimates suppose that UHC will end up being cheaper than what we’re already doing, because administrative costs will drop.

I beg to differ. When has the government run anything reduced administrative costs? I am willing to learn. Cite me the program.

 

[sodak]

No, they don’t. The WHO is more credible than a libertarian with an agenda.

Actually, they are not. But that isn’t the issue, the facts are the issue, and you are artfully dodging that by attacking the messenger.

The Aristotelian definition of “human right” is something that one needs in order to function.

If you check the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” article 25, it reads “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care.”

You may not agree with the Declaration itself, but my point is that I’m not misusing the phrase “human rights.”

I don’t agree with the “Declaration”. Where does it come from? These “rights” mean that someone has to produce them for everyone. Don’t have new jeans? Well, that’s a “right”! Go down to the store and take some - how dare they charge you!

Human rights are given to us by God, affirmed by our Constitution. They do NOT require anyone to produce anything for us, rather, they require the govt. to stay out of those particular areas and let us be. Your “Declaration”, wherever it is from, is backwards. Completely.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s accounted for in the statistics: we spend more per person than Canada does. R&D is a completely separate issue, of which we do pay more for.

R&D is not a separate issue. It is part and parcel of drug costs, and the reason we pay more and they pay less is because they cheat. By making it impossible for companies to recoup R&D costs on drugs sold in Canada, they throw the whole R&D cost on the American consumer.

The Europeans and Canadians combined used to outspend us in R&D by a huge margin. Since 1990, they have virtually killed their R&D. Do you want to kill American R&D as well, and stop all progress in drugs?

 

[sodak]

That came real close to happening in the 90’s for HIV/Aids. Several activist AIDS organizations decided that drug companies weren’t doing enough - they accused the companies of dragging their heels in R&D, etc. Many of the large drug companies decided that the aggravation and bad publicity wasn’t worth it, and dropped the entire line of research.

Then the activists were really mad, claiming that the drug companies wanted them all to die. You just can’t please some people that want life here on earth to be “nirvana”.

I can’t stand activists and their tactics, no matter whose side they are one.

 

[Oscarthecat]

R&D is not a separate issue. It is part and parcel of drug costs, and the reason we pay more and they pay less is because they cheat. By making it impossible for companies to recoup R&D costs on drugs sold in Canada, they throw the whole R&D cost on the American consumer.

The Europeans and Canadians combined used to outspend us in R&D by a huge margin. Since 1990, they have virtually killed their R&D. Do you want to kill American R&D as well, and stop all progress in drugs?

That won’t stop all progress in drugs, Vern. Just OUR progress.

Pharmaceuticals will become just one more successful industry that the socialists in this country have forced out through high taxation, excessive restrictions, and the threat of nationalizing industry.

Those companies will simply open up shop in other countries that don’t punish people for being successful-

 

[Oscarthecat]

The process becomes more streamlined when we aren’t fumbling with statistics and private mechanisms.

Right, just like every other “streamlined” government bureaucracy.

 

[cynic]

Wow, you can’t help but keep accusing me of wanting people to die, can you.

If this discussion is going to go any further, you are going to have to accept that just because someone disagrees with you about HOW to help others doesn’t mean they don’t want to help others, much less see them dead.

Er…but isn’t your point that the end will never justify the means. If we apply this to healthcare, then it *would *be better to die than receive treatement with ‘stolen’ money.

The implication here is that “government” is the safety net. But there are all kinds of safety nets in society- the government is ahuman construct, no more no less. But unlike voluntary human constructs, for some reason people believe the government is the last, best hope for humanity.
.

Government has the means to operate on a national level, charities for the most part operate at the local level. Someone in one part of a country could benefit from more charity, and thus get better treatement, than another in the exact same circumstances somewhere else. Some may not receive help at all.

Oh but the possibility of this is still better than government theft of a portion of your earnings.

 

[BamaRider]

Er…but isn’t your point that the end will never justify the means. If we apply this to healthcare, then it would be better to die than receive treatement with ‘stolen’ money.

Oscar never said, or implied anything like this.