V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I gave you the list before, Vern.
- Status
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
First, evidence against UHC has already been laid out in this thread- rather than ask everyone to repost, you should just go back and read it.
Second, I don’t care about the favorable data anyone provides about the Canadian Healthcare System. This is because of two things
a. The inherent bias of studies studies by wolves about the benefits of eating sheep. That is, I am suspicious of studies on the Canadian Healthcare system BY the Canadian Healthcare system and UN studies about the benefits of socialized medicine given that UN policy is already in favor of globalized socialized medicine.
b. The architect of the Canadian Healthcare System has declared it a failure, has concluded that the tactics of rationing healthcare services and constantly injecting more money into the system has failed, and now recommends increased privatization of Canadian healthcare.
Quick side-question: why, if the Canadian Healthcare System is doing so great, is the architect of it publicly stating it needs massive reform??
Finally, your request for data that would conclusively prove that a US UHC program would fail or succeed is illogical. It is impossible to provide data that proves the success or failure of universal healthcare in the United States** because we don’t have a universal healthcare program in the United States.** No one can provide conclusive data on the performance of something that doesn’t exist. You might as well ask me to provide evidence that conclusively proves that my 1 year old daughter will pass her college entrance exams.
That is why this discussion has focused primarily on the ethical considerations of either favoring or opposing UHC, specifically:
Second, I don’t care about the favorable data anyone provides about the Canadian Healthcare System. This is because of two things
a. The inherent bias of studies studies by wolves about the benefits of eating sheep. That is, I am suspicious of studies on the Canadian Healthcare system BY the Canadian Healthcare system and UN studies about the benefits of socialized medicine given that UN policy is already in favor of globalized socialized medicine.
b. The architect of the Canadian Healthcare System has declared it a failure, has concluded that the tactics of rationing healthcare services and constantly injecting more money into the system has failed, and now recommends increased privatization of Canadian healthcare.
Quick side-question: why, if the Canadian Healthcare System is doing so great, is the architect of it publicly stating it needs massive reform??
Finally, your request for data that would conclusively prove that a US UHC program would fail or succeed is illogical. It is impossible to provide data that proves the success or failure of universal healthcare in the United States** because we don’t have a universal healthcare program in the United States.** No one can provide conclusive data on the performance of something that doesn’t exist. You might as well ask me to provide evidence that conclusively proves that my 1 year old daughter will pass her college entrance exams.
That is why this discussion has focused primarily on the ethical considerations of either favoring or opposing UHC, specifically:
- the proper role of government vs. our call as Christians to engage in individual charity
- the right of individuals to make their own choices regarding their healthcare options vs. the government’s prerogative implement a necessarily utilitarian healthcare system
- divergent opinions regarding increasing the size of government
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Since someone is bound to accuse me of skirting your facts vis a vis my previous post, I guess I might as well respond to the canadian data…
These statistics don’t mean anything. The only statistics I will offer in return is that there is a 100% chance someone is going to accuse me of dodging the issue again, a 75% chance someone will accuse me of being greedy again, and a 63% chance that someone is going to accuse me of hating the sick and the poor.
What does this prove, exactly? Infant mortality is caused by all kinds of things, and many of those have nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. Car accidents, murder rate, suicide rate…these all contribute to the infant mortality data. Your data doesn’t demonstrate anything about the difference between the two healthcare systems. Arguably, if the numbers were significantly different, I might be persuaded, but they’re not.
Again, suicide, murder, car accidents, slipped in bathtub- these have little to do with the quality of healthcare. For crying out loud, our higher infant mortality rate lowers the average life expectancy.
another meaningless statistic- if you had fewer nurses, you’d say you’re more efficient. If you had more doctors, you’d say you were better staffed. You can spin it however you want.
Again, meaningless because if you had a higher of GDP, you’d just say that Canada just cares more about healthcare because they spend more on it, and then accuse the US of being miserly when it comes to healthcare spending.
These statistics don’t mean anything. The only statistics I will offer in return is that there is a 100% chance someone is going to accuse me of dodging the issue again, a 75% chance someone will accuse me of being greedy again, and a 63% chance that someone is going to accuse me of hating the sick and the poor.
C
Caesar517
Guest
C
cynic
Guest
You don’t think there are car accidents, murders and suicides in Canada?
If average life expectancy isn’t at least an indicator of the health of a population then what on earth is?
One the main criticisms of UHC is that it imposes a high cost on the taxpayer, who then doesn’t have enough money left to go private if the service is sub-standard. How is that true if the total cost is less than that for the U.S, which only has medicaid?
M
mary_bobo
Guest
The charity level on this thread has deteriorated to the point of being ridiculous. As I have pointed out before, there is a big difference in the size of the population between the US and Canada. Our Canadian friends seem happy with their system. That’s fine because that is what they have. For me, after living there and almost dying as a result of their system, I can’t find much good to say about it. And for those on the thread who wish they had the same system as Canada, I invite them to go there for a period of time. I just hope they don’t get ill while they are there.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
O
onetimeposter
Guest
Excellent question.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
what I’m pointing out is that a statistic that combines several things into one measure is not a valid measure of just one of those things.
excellent question. The answer depends on what you’re trying to prove. That’s why they’re all useless.
Funny thing about that statistic is, as I mentioned before, is that it was produced by, for, and about the Canadian system. The USSR reported prosperity right up until the collapse. Other funny thing is that authentic efficiency measures are masked by government price fixing, service rationing, research costs that are shouldered by U.S. Companies, and the unreported costs of services provided outside the system.
Again, you didn’t answer my question: why, if the Canadian health system is working, has its creator declared it is in crisis and has recommended moving toward privatization.
J
jman507
Guest
What would be important then is what are the services rendered?
O
onetimeposter
Guest
What are you talking about?
I would like to know who you think the creator of National Health care is…please provide his or her name.
The creator, the visionary, the Father of Canadian Universal Health care was Tommy Douglas, he died in 1986.
How passionate are Canadians about our Universal Health care?
In 2004, Nation wide, Tommy Douglas was voted the " Greatest Canadian".
cbc.ca/greatest/
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
That comment borders on disingenuous.
My source is not a “radio show,” it is the actual words of British and Canadian officials as I heard them. The statistics I cited were in published documents – which anyone is free to inspect and challenge. No doubt if the data were wrong, it would have been challenged by the government before now.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
You haven’t been reading posts. This has already been discussed. You can start by reading post 677, and then track back from there.
But I concede that I should have written “one of the creators” instead.
R
rtconstant
Guest
No there has actually been no evidence against UHC posted on this thread. We’ve had lots of anecdotal scenarios, we’ve had “theories” about problems it would cause even though all real world historical evidence seems to point the opposite direction, and we’ve had one alternative measure presented which while it can be judged on its own merits really isn’t “evidence” one way or the other.
We have on the other hand seen evidence in support of UHC which has just been ignored. With excuses like “those statistics could mean anything”. Which while that sounds good but it lacks some punch when no reputable institution seems to have come up with alternative statistics.
I’ll say it again. You can’t argue that UHC doesn’t work. The record is proven. What we can argue about is whether or not it can work here. From what I’ve seen most of the more right-wing posters seem to feel that the government of the United States is not capable of implementing a successful UHC program like the western and northern European nations have.
So let’s discuss that. As long as you keep trying to climb the glass mountain of claiming that UHC is in and of itself a horrible nation ruining thing while every nation in the 1st world with superior health care to our own uses it we’re really not going to get us anywhere. That battle is done. What we need to be discussing is its viability here and what sort of reforms we need to put in place so that all citizens can receive good health coverage.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
Excellent post.
B
BamaRider
Guest
One of the thing lost in this discussion is THIS-
The Free World, meaning the West-comes under the protection of the American Military. Europe and Canada (outside of the Brits) have no military to speak of. Their armies have been stripped and cast aside to pay for huge social programs, that have become orges of their own, ever expanding, and every gobbling up more and more taxes.
When you don’t have a military you can do a alot of things, but defending yourself is not one of them.
As Americans we don’t have that luxury. We have a targert on our back. If Iran shut down the Straits tomorrow with a naval blockade, what would the West do without the U.S. and Royal Navy? Tell ya what-NOT a thing. Y’all would be in the dark ages, and come winter there would be alot of cold Canadians, but hey, you’d have social medicine!
If Al Q flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower, I reckon the President there could call the Ministry of Health to find out what the response would be, because the army would have none.
We had to twist and bend arms to get Nato to even help us in Afghanistan, and while those troops are doing the best they can, they have little support back home, in terms of equipment, and money.
The USA can’t do that. Europe and Canada have made a choice about what they feel is most important. Confident in the ability of the U.S. military machine to protect them, they sit around and sip lattes.
We have interests around the world that have to be protected, maintaing and equipping the worlds finest army is expensive. But I feel good knowing that if terroists kidnap me, take me hostage, someone will come for me, and at least try to get me home. If you’re from anywhere else, you’re pretty much hosed, nobody is coming. In fact, unless you’re American, Aussie, British, or Israeli, all you’re gonna get is “diplomatic channels” and hope your captors just plain feel sorry for ya.
But who is Canada gonna make mad? It has no influrence on the world outside Her borders, same as say the Dutch, French, Gemans, et al. Europe as a whole has some influence but less and less every week, becaue everybody knows, they can’t do anything but talk.
Whether we like it or not, we have influence in every corner of the world, we make people mad, but it is what it is. We can’t withdraw because exporting and protecting democracy is a tough business, and makes us a target.
I still prefer my BCBS insurance. A few years ago it fixed my hernia in 2 weeks, from diagnosis to back on the streets. I spent the night in the hopital, private room, tv, dvd, bath, wi fi, round the clock nurses and doctors that attended my every need. A billionare in Canada can’t the kind of care I receive. Social medicine =mediorcitry for everyone! NO thanks.
Some quote stats live longer etc. Just make sure you’re comparing apples to apples. We have a vast, varied population, and millions here illegaly, that before they got here had NO medical care, I’m sure they tilt the numbers in some kind of way.
Noway I’m am I gonna vote to disarm MY country to take on UHC, and depend on some 3rd party to come to my rescue, and that ain’t just me, but the vast majority of Americans.
The Free World, meaning the West-comes under the protection of the American Military. Europe and Canada (outside of the Brits) have no military to speak of. Their armies have been stripped and cast aside to pay for huge social programs, that have become orges of their own, ever expanding, and every gobbling up more and more taxes.
When you don’t have a military you can do a alot of things, but defending yourself is not one of them.
As Americans we don’t have that luxury. We have a targert on our back. If Iran shut down the Straits tomorrow with a naval blockade, what would the West do without the U.S. and Royal Navy? Tell ya what-NOT a thing. Y’all would be in the dark ages, and come winter there would be alot of cold Canadians, but hey, you’d have social medicine!
If Al Q flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower, I reckon the President there could call the Ministry of Health to find out what the response would be, because the army would have none.
We had to twist and bend arms to get Nato to even help us in Afghanistan, and while those troops are doing the best they can, they have little support back home, in terms of equipment, and money.
The USA can’t do that. Europe and Canada have made a choice about what they feel is most important. Confident in the ability of the U.S. military machine to protect them, they sit around and sip lattes.
We have interests around the world that have to be protected, maintaing and equipping the worlds finest army is expensive. But I feel good knowing that if terroists kidnap me, take me hostage, someone will come for me, and at least try to get me home. If you’re from anywhere else, you’re pretty much hosed, nobody is coming. In fact, unless you’re American, Aussie, British, or Israeli, all you’re gonna get is “diplomatic channels” and hope your captors just plain feel sorry for ya.
But who is Canada gonna make mad? It has no influrence on the world outside Her borders, same as say the Dutch, French, Gemans, et al. Europe as a whole has some influence but less and less every week, becaue everybody knows, they can’t do anything but talk.
Whether we like it or not, we have influence in every corner of the world, we make people mad, but it is what it is. We can’t withdraw because exporting and protecting democracy is a tough business, and makes us a target.
I still prefer my BCBS insurance. A few years ago it fixed my hernia in 2 weeks, from diagnosis to back on the streets. I spent the night in the hopital, private room, tv, dvd, bath, wi fi, round the clock nurses and doctors that attended my every need. A billionare in Canada can’t the kind of care I receive. Social medicine =mediorcitry for everyone! NO thanks.
Some quote stats live longer etc. Just make sure you’re comparing apples to apples. We have a vast, varied population, and millions here illegaly, that before they got here had NO medical care, I’m sure they tilt the numbers in some kind of way.
Noway I’m am I gonna vote to disarm MY country to take on UHC, and depend on some 3rd party to come to my rescue, and that ain’t just me, but the vast majority of Americans.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
Is that the only way to get universal health insurance? Your point is clear and in that point I do agree. Canada and the United States have different priorities when it comes to equal access to health care.One of the thing lost in this discussion is THIS-
The Free World, meaning the West-comes under the protection of the American Military. Europe and Canada (outside of the Brits) have no military to speak of. Their armies have been stripped and cast aside to pay for huge social programs, that have become orges of their own, ever expanding, and every gobbling up more and more taxes.
**
Careful, our soldiers are presently giving their lives in Afghanistan while fighting the Taliban.
Our military has been neglected, but not at the sole expense of Universal Health Care. I must also remind you that we are a small population dispersed across an immense country. We have a population of 32 million, I’m not sure how big a military would satisfy you.**
When you don’t have a military you can do a alot of things, but defending yourself is not one of them. We do have a military and they are presently fighting in Afghanistan.
**
We are in no danger from being attacked from any outside nation. The only threat we face is terrorism and we are dealing with that, by fighting in Afghanistan, along with the Brits, USA, Germans, Dutch, Australia etc…**
As Americans we don’t have that luxury. We have a targert on our back. If Iran shut down the Straits tomorrow with a naval blockade, what would the West do without the U.S. and Royal Navy? Tell ya what-NOT a thing. Y’all would be in the dark ages, and come winter there would be alot of cold Canadians, but hey, you’d have social medicine!
We just use our abundance of Natural Gas to heat our homes and stop selling the Iranians our Beaver pelts and Premium Maple Syrup.
We had to twist and bend arms to get Nato to even help us in Afghanistan, and while those troops are doing the best they can, they have little support back home, in terms of equipment, and money.
The Canadian military enjoys enormous public support…the mission itself, its about 60% in favour, 40% not in favour. Canada did not have to be forced into Afghanistan…we went willingly.
The USA can’t do that. Europe and Canada have made a choice about what they feel is most important. Confident in the ability of the U.S. military machine to protect them, they sit around and sip lattes.
**I’ll remind you that Americans enjoy Starbucks and Canadians enjoy the blue collar atmosphere of Tim Hortons.
**
We have interests around the world that have to be protected, maintaing and equipping the worlds finest army is expensive. But I feel good knowing that if terroists kidnap me, take me hostage, someone will come for me, and at least try to get me home. If you’re from anywhere else, you’re pretty much hosed, nobody is coming. In fact, unless you’re American, Aussie, British, or Israeli, all you’re gonna get is “diplomatic channels” and hope your captors just plain feel sorry for ya.
I suggest you research the Canadian JTF2 ( Joint Task Force 2)
But who is Canada gonna make mad? It has no influrence on the world outside Her borders, same as say the Dutch, French, Gemans, et al. Europe as a whole has some influence but less and less every week, becaue everybody knows, they can’t do anything but talk.
True. We are a very small, but immensely prosperous nation, with very little power in the global scheme of things.
Whether we like it or not, we have influence in every corner of the world, we make people mad, but it is what it is. We can’t withdraw because exporting and protecting democracy is a tough business, and makes us a target.
I don’t believe that is why America extends its influence all over the world. I suspect it has more to do with financial and resource issues, more so than gloriously exporting democracy all over the world.
I still prefer my BCBS insurance. A few years ago it fixed my hernia in 2 weeks, from diagnosis to back on the streets. I spent the night in the hopital, private room, tv, dvd, bath, wi fi, round the clock nurses and doctors that attended my every need. A billionare in Canada can’t the kind of care I receive. Social medicine =mediorcitry for everyone! NO thanks.
Except the mediocrity allows us to live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, every citizen receives health care and we spend less money!
Some quote stats live longer etc. Just make sure you’re comparing apples to apples. We have a vast, varied population, and millions here illegaly, that before they got here had NO medical care, I’m sure they tilt the numbers in some kind of way.
I’m not so sure.
Noway I’m am I gonna vote to disarm MY country to take on UHC, and depend on some 3rd party to come to my rescue, and that ain’t just me, but the vast majority of Americans.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
This is getting exhausting. You are relying on the same repetetive pattern:
First, you state that US healthcare is broken.
Second, you declare that something must be done.
Third, you declare that “Universal Healthcare” is something, and conclude that it must be done.
Fourth, you declare that anyone opposed to you is greedy, ignorant of the “facts,” and hates poor people.
Fifth, you declare yourself the winner, assert that anyone who disagrees that you have won has simply ignored your evidence.
Finally, you attempt to change the course of the discussion to how we should implement your plan.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I will restate the main positions that have been provided against UHC, for your benefit.
- Evidence has been posted against UHC. You may choose not to recognize it as such, but it has been posted.
- I have responded to your data. I questioned the source, because I think that the WHO has a lot to gain by advocating UHC. I have demonstrated, point for point, that the data doesn’t prove anything about the quality of UHC in other countries.
- I have laid out a clear, logical position explaining why I do not believe that the government has the right to socialize a private industry.
- I have laid out a clear, logical position explaining why I believe that government is ill equipped to provide the same level of efficiency and quality as private industry.
- I have expressed my concern that committing to any government entitlement program will cause long lasting damage to the economic growth of the country because government entitlement programs inevitably grow beyond their original intended function, require progressively larger tax dollars. Furthermore, despite widespread agreement that government entitlement programs are problematic, once they reach the point of being destructive, they have already become nearly impossible to get rid of because no politician wants to be known as the one who ended social security, medicaid, medicaire, etc.
- I have explained that social welfare programs are damaging to our call to individual Christian Charity because they attempt to substitute impersonal government action (the program itself) for individual and collective charitable action, and substitute taxes for the call to give of one’s self and one’s resources. Consequently, this distorts Christ’s call for unity through a common love of one another which is expressed through charitable work. Instead, charity is exchanged for government force, free will gifts are exchanged for compulsory taxation, the graceful appreciation of charity by the poor is exchanged for a self-righteous sense of entitlement to the benefits of other peoples’ labor.
- I have offererd the position that standardizing any private system through any large programs violates subsidiarity, tends toward mainstreaming services provided, and results in stagnation in research and ingenuity. This is demonstrated in UHC by the rationing of services, the inability of patients and doctors to engage in highly personalized treatment plans, the impersonalization of treatment approval by the funding source-just as is seen in private insurance companies today.
I am not arguing that the US system is good as it stands, I am advocating the position that government involvement is what has caused the majority of problems in US healthcare right now, thus, the institution of socialized medicine would only make those problems worse.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
The only way out of this pattern is for those who disagree with you to sigh, and walk away. While you interpret that as a silent agreement with your position, you should take it for what it is, which is that they realized this discussion isn’t going anywhere because you’re convinced that your solution is the best and only one.
- Status