Universal health insurance

[goofyjim]

Fine. Take the government out of health insurance for the disabled. But when no private insurer offers anything and I have no way to pay for things I’ll just stop taking my medication and stop seeing the doctor and if I die the blood will be on society’s hands. I’m tired of the obstinacy here. It would only be socialized medicine if everyoenwas forced to participate. I haven’t heard one solution but only complaints that we can’t have the government involved. If we weren’t wasting money on other things which shalll remain nameless we might be able to start providing humanitarian relief at home.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fine. Take the government out of health insurance for the disabled. But when no private insurer offers anything and I have no way to pay for things I’ll just stop taking my medication and stop seeing the doctor and if I die the blood will be on society’s hands. I’m tired of the obstinacy here. It would only be socialized medicine if everyoenwas forced to participate. **I haven’t heard one solution **but only complaints that we can’t have the government involved. If we weren’t wasting money on other things which shalll remain nameless we might be able to start providing humanitarian relief at home.

That’s not true, Jim. I have posted detailed solutions in this very thread. Would you like me to re-post them?

 

[Caesar517]

If we weren’t wasting money on other things which shalll remain nameless we might be able to start providing humanitarian relief at home.

Yes, we can remove most government programs and then we can provide more humanitarian relief via private charities because we will be recieving a larger portion of our paychecks.

Although I’m sure that’s not what you meant.

 

[goofyjim]

That’s not true, Jim. I have posted detailed solutions in this very thread. Would you like me to re-post them?

No. It is true. Everyone keeps insiting that private insurers will pick up the tab. Guess what they won’t. Big business never does anything that isn’t profitable and it would never be profitable to insure anyone who costs money from the beginning. Unless of course they charge them an exorbitant amount for a premium which is no better and still leaves them poor. In a civilized society we can find the means to have health care for the disabled.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No. It is true. Everyone keeps insiting that private insurers will pick up the tab. Guess what they won’t. Big business never does anything that isn’t profitable and it would never be profitable to insure anyone who costs money from the beginning. Unless of course they charge them an exorbitant amount for a premium which is no better and still leaves them poor. In a civilized society we can find the means to have health care for the disabled.

Jim, it is not true that no one offers solutions. I have suggested MSAs:

The fundamental principle behind Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) is that you buy cheap, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance, and then save an amount each year equal to the deductible with tax-free dollars. You use that money to cover any medical expenses up to the deductible. You roll any unused dollars over at the end of each year into your IRA. The institution holding the MSA would issue a credit card, and this card would be used to pay for health care. This would have several important impacts:

1. Paperwork makes up from one-third (in private health plans) to two-thirds (in government programs) of the total cost of health care. The use of this credit card approach would dramatically reduce the paperwork and result in lower costs.

1. The current systems of paying for health care have long delays built in. The pay-on-the-spot approach would allow care providers to further lower costs.

1. MSAs provide an incentive for people to bargain for health care – when people spend their own money (and know they can keep all they save), they have an incentive to bargain for better rates.

1. MSAs provide an incentive to avoid over-consumption of medical care.

People who cannot afford MSAs can apply for assistance, based on their most recent tax return, and would receive proportionate assistance – not an automatic 100%. They would get help with insurance premiums and with each payment from their MSA – so they would always have the chance to save something by bargaining and not over-consuming.

Young people would especially benefit from this – since they could build up substantial savings in their healthiest years.

I have also recommended allowing people to shop for health insurance across state lines (which is illegal at the present time) and to allow unafiliated businesses to band together to bargain for health insurance for employees (also illegal at the present time.)

 

[Oscarthecat]

No. It is true. Everyone keeps insiting that private insurers will pick up the tab. Guess what they won’t. Big business never does anything that isn’t profitable and it would never be profitable to insure anyone who costs money from the beginning. Unless of course they charge them an exorbitant amount for a premium which is no better and still leaves them poor. .

Jim, this is the same argument you have stated from the very beginning.

In a civilized society we can find the means to have health care for the disabled

But on the bright side, you’re showing progress because you didn’t conclude that the means to affordable healthcare has to involve the government.

I don’t claim to have a comprehensive answer to the problems facing healthcare today.
We are all to blame for the current state of healthcare:

• Government subsidies and regulations have inflated costs.
• Politicians have politicized the healthcare debate by declaring their socialist solutions as the only solutions.
• Pundits have divided the public by declaring those in favor of UHC as kooky idealists who want to pay for prescription meds with hugs, and those opposed to UHC as heartless conservatives who hate poor people and the sick.
• Insurance companies have exacerbated this by initially paying these inflated costs, and then pulling the plug when costs began to interfere with prices.
• Consumers/patients have exacerbated this by getting used to paying a tiny copay relative to the full costs of the actual services.
• Healthcare providers have gotten used to being able to mask inflated costs by dividing costs among numerous payment sources. They have also been forced to comply with expensive government regulations and policies that look good on paper, but create inefficiencies and increase costs.
• Doctors have to charge more per patient to meet the rising costs of malpractice insurance, education loan debt, equipment costs, and to offset the ever increasing amount of time they have to spend filling out paperwork when they could be seeing patients.
• Medical schools and healthcare services training programs have gotten used to charging ridiculously high tuition and fees based on the expectation of high medical employment compensation.

The bottom line is that all of these systems are interdependent, to one degree or another, and so any solution has to be a cooperative effort. Socializing medicine is not a cooperative effort, it is a forcible act. On the other hand, the free market is cooperative, but government and politicians won’t cooperate with the free market to loosen restrictions and increase competition because it reduces their control and influence.

There is no easy answer to any of this, and this stubborn attachment to UHC plans is only diverting the public’s energy away from finding a solution that will really work.

 

[BamaRider]

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…

The only threat?? I guess the world stage never changes in y’all point of view. Exactly what would Canada do if Hamas captured the CDN embassy in Jordan and took hostages, with a complacent Jordanian govt? Hmmm??

As far as a another nation attacking? True for today, but who knows what tomorrow brings.

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.

No one is taking anything away from those brave Canadian troops, they are doing great things. But they are small in numbers, with little support, the average CDN is not gonna have anything to do with the army cutting into any his freebies.

Don’t have to remind me, I’ve traveled extensively the entire Country- Halifax to Victoria and all in between. A vast and beautiful place, but my guess is 80% of the population lives 50 miles from the US border?

I dont’t know the CDN defense budget, but to say socialism has not had a major effect on it would be misleading.

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 have natural gas also, but many of my fellow citizens use heating oil, I reckon nobody in Canada uses heating oil?

**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.

They do? If given a choice when it comes to being able to protect yourself or govt freebies the people have made their choice. Now you take comfort there is no govt with a formiable army wishing Canada harm, fine for now, but you never know what the feature brings.

And the fact you can defend yourself unilaterally against terrorism is up for debate. In the UK and America, that is not a question that even comes up.

You can’t project a meaningful military presence anywhere on your own, at least one anybody would be afraid off, certainly not Al Q.

Like I said you made your choices, now you must live with the assumption no one is currently out there ,or on the horizion that bodes you harm.

A current debate took place in Canada about more troops in Afghanistan, but the left jumped up and down there with the cry, “The Americans only what more help there so they do more in Iraq, and we ain’t goin along with it.” And they didn’t.

I’ll remind you that Americans enjoy Starbucks and Canadians enjoy the blue collar atmosphere of Tim Hortons

And I’ll remind YOU, only in America, a country so wealthy due to capitialistic anti socialims principals, can we engage in TWO massive wars on 2 fronts, and it not affect the average American’s day. And that maybe some of the problems people have with this, I dunno. That’s a whole nother thread.

Except the mediocrity allows us to live longer, have a lower infant mortality rate, every citizen receives health care and we spend less money!

You keep talking about this. but lets look closer. Could it be Americans are so affluent we eat too many Big Macs? Not enough excersise? Our society is racially diverse, what is Canada? 70% Anglo? Could it be some of the millions that make up American society are predisposed to somethings not commonly found in Anglos such as high blood pressure, cancers, cardiac problems?

Those stats mean nothing in regards to health care. For crying out loud there are more CAT machines in the *city of Pittsburgh *then the entire country of Canada, or it was the last time checked.

 

[Sailka]

My top value in this debate is the general well being of the American people. While universal health insurance for every American sounds like it would significantly reduce medical problems, I do not believe it would. First, the doctor-patient ratio would increase, and doctors would be seeing more patients and therefore not be able to treat each one as well. Second, people with terminal illnesses would not be able to get treated as quickly, due to a longer waiting list. Third, countries such as Canada have established this policy, and it has been a failure. Canadians are always coming to hospitals in the USA. Fourth, the status quo ensures treatment for every patient already. No doctor can reject a patient in a hospital for the lack of funding. Problem appears to be solved already. Fifth, the funds required for the government mandate this program would be through the roof, and thus money could not be spent elsewhere, on problems that truly do need funding (environment, protecting the troops, immigration problems, economic stimulus, etc.)

The Catholic Church currently advocates for universal health insurance. While their intent is great, I do not believe that the problem could be solved by the method in which they are in favor of.

The counter-plan would be this: provide incentives for private industries to contribute to the American health care system. This way, doctors would not have such strict regulations, the advantages of the current system would be maintained, and the government would not be spending so much money.

Several Major errors here! (1) It is the tens of thousands of Businesses now In health, especially HMO’s etc which restrict Doctor with Patient time to 5 minutes. (2) We Americans pay minimally Twice as much as much per capita for health care system than National Health care Nations and Canada have. And they have far better Results for patients. (3) There are Lot of false hype about National Health care systems like Long lines, etc by Out tens of thousabnds now if Health “Businesses” Industry put out. (4) The most ideal Health System was proposed in 1993, Based on the best, most efficioent, low cost system > Catholic Health care in USA. (5) But it was deefeated by a couple of very strongly ‘bought’ healtth Industry congessional Votes. (6) Key factor of the Big 3 US Auto manufacturers bankruptcy last year were Their paying massively escalating Health premiums. Other countries Auto Manufacturers do not have that expense

 

[Sailka]

The only threat?? I guess the world stage never changes in y’all point of view. Exactly what would Canada do if Hamas captured the CDN embassy in Jordan and took hostages, with a complacent Jordanian govt? Hmmm??

As far as a another nation attacking? True for today, but who knows what tomorrow brings.

No one is taking anything away from those brave Canadian troops, they are doing great things. But they are small in numbers, with little support, the average CDN is not gonna have anything to do with the army cutting into any his freebies.

Don’t have to remind me, I’ve traveled extensively the entire Country- Halifax to Victoria and all in between. A vast and beautiful place, but my guess is 80% of the population lives 50 miles from the US border?

I dont’t know the CDN defense budget, but to say socialism has not had a major effect on it would be misleading.

We have natural gas also, but many of my fellow citizens use heating oil, I reckon nobody in Canada uses heating oil?

They do? If given a choice when it comes to being able to protect yourself or govt freebies the people have made their choice. Now you take comfort there is no govt with a formiable army wishing Canada harm, fine for now, but you never know what the feature brings.

And the fact you can defend yourself unilaterally against terrorism is up for debate. In the UK and America, that is not a question that even comes up.

You can’t project a meaningful military presence anywhere on your own, at least one anybody would be afraid off, certainly not Al Q.

Like I said you made your choices, now you must live with the assumption no one is currently out there ,or on the horizion that bodes you harm.

A current debate took place in Canada about more troops in Afghanistan, but the left jumped up and down there with the cry, “The Americans only what more help there so they do more in Iraq, and we ain’t goin along with it.” And they didn’t.

And I’ll remind YOU, only in America, a country so wealthy due to capitialistic anti socialims principals, can we engage in TWO massive wars on 2 fronts, and it not affect the average American’s day. And that maybe some of the problems people have with this, I dunno. That’s a whole nother thread.

You keep talking about this. but lets look closer. Could it be Americans are so affluent we eat too many Big Macs? Not enough excersise? Our society is racially diverse, what is Canada? 70% Anglo? Could it be some of the millions that make up American society are predisposed to somethings not commonly found in Anglos such as high blood pressure, cancers, cardiac problems?

Those stats mean nothing in regards to health care. For crying out loud there are more CAT machines in the *city of Pittsburgh *then the entire country of Canada, or it was the last time checked.

                                                                                           (1)   We pay  at least Twice as much per capita for our  "all businesses  of health care"  compared to  Best Health cares, which are Universal,  as All Advanced economies like Europe, Canadian Provinces, Japan have.    (2)    We have among  Worst infant    survival rates  in  advanced world, ranking  below Mexico at  43rd and falling.     (3)    Are you not aware that the USA has the Biggest deficits, Includimg Minth by Month, in ourHistory?    Knowwho our   Mortgage Holder now Is?   The Massively growing Red Chinese economy we support with massive interest payments. 

(4)  Not   aware that   the USA is now Bankrupt?   That  Labor and   Companies are   leaving the USA?    (5)  Not aware  that the  almoghtuy Dollar is now Worthless,   because of these same  tax  slashing on the Richest Adminstration that Reversed the ideal massive govt and business adminstration of  the 1990's?

 

[cynic]

.

I have demonstrated, point for point, that the data doesn’t prove anything about the quality of UHC in other countries.

.

Are there significantly more murders, suicides and road deaths in the U.S than in other developed countries? There is a higher homicide rate, but hardly enough to effect life expectancy.

If the vast majority of deaths are caused by medical ailments, then it seems reasonable that the effectiveness of health services and life expectancy are in some way linked.

.
5. 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.
.

So you’re against social security too. Removing the pention would be highly ‘destructive’ to many who currently rely on it. It’s all based on your point of view, where your priorites lie.

.
6. 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.
.

Tell that to the 1 in 5 americans who have no cover. Is charity currently solving the issue for them? Will a tax cut result in charity solving the issue for them? Is charity going to fund the premiums or the delivery of service for 1/5 of you. What about illness that requires ongoing treatment, is charity going to foot the cost?

It seems like the people who say this sort of thing aren’t interested in specifics. Taking the high ground more important.

Others argue over what works, but you say an opposing viewpoint is *Un-Christian, *regardless of outcome. This is perhaps the most underhand aspect of it. Those giving in the spirit of Christian charity do so because of the ‘spiritual benefits’ they receive, and government redistribution negates this, therefore it must be bad. It also interferes with liberty (a tired argument). End of story, zero room to move.

I would have thought those giving would do so out of caring for others welfare first and foremost. Isn’t the debate around whether government is the best means to this end etc.

 

[Sailka]

I think more restictions on* births *are morally acceptable.

                                                                                          But are you not aware that USA and Europe  native  populations have Negative Growth?  Are fun, career, my life  not reproducing?  Been Very much the news, and is  reason why third world high-reproduction cultures are being rushed to USA?  Means    more    customers for business, marketing in future, cleaned by  Globalization interests  of  Faith,   Culture,  Ethnic traditions.     Have not heard What Globalization is Doing?     Enrich the richest also.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                          Vivat  Jesus, not self.  



                                                                                                                                                                                          :crossrc:       :gopray2:

 

[Oscarthecat]

Are there significantly more murders, suicides and road deaths in the U.S than in other developed countries? There is a higher homicide rate, but hardly enough to effect life expectancy.

If the vast majority of deaths are caused by medical ailments, then it seems reasonable that the effectiveness of health services and life expectancy are in some way linked.

Here is some interesting information that will hopefully end this debate about the divergent life expectancy rates in the US vs. Canada:

source: healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/

As I said, infant mortality rates are not just about the quality of healthcare, but also reflect accidental deaths, as well as cultural and socio-economic issues.

• “In fact U.S. infant mortality is lower for low-birthweight babies than Canadian infant mortality for low birthweight babies. Overall infant mortality, however, is higher in the U.S. because the incidence of babies with low birthweight is higher than in Canada. This may be due to demographic or epidemiological factors, or it may be the case that the U.S. is better at having a live birth for a low birthweight baby.”

here are some other interesting highlights from the article:

• "Canada general has a lower disease incidence rate, but treatment rates are generally higher in the U.S. "
• “the composition of the non-white group differs by country—predominantly black in the U.S., but Asian in Canada; and racial differences in health outcomes may differ in the two countries.”
• “Probably the most surprising discovery of the paper was that Americans partake in more preventive care than Canadians.”
• Mammograms: 88.6% of American females 40-69 had ever had a mammogram compared to 72.3% of Canadians.
• PAP smear: 86.3% of American females 20-69 had a PAP smear in the last 3 years compared to 75.1% of Canadians.
• Prostate screening: 54.2% of American men 40-69 had ever had a PSA test compared to 16.4% of Canadians.

 

[Oscarthecat]

So you’re against social security too. Removing the pention would be highly ‘destructive’ to many who currently rely on it. It’s all based on your point of view, where your priorites lie.

First, would like to point out that you are in “Step 4” of the pattern I laid out earlier today.

To respond to your implied accusation that I hate not only sick and poor people, but also old people:

I am against social security. It has grown beyond its original intent, and has now become an expensive entitlement program that would perfom better if it was allowed to be rolled over into private investment accounts.

That being said, I agree with you that pulling the rug out from underneath those who paid in and are now dependant upon that income would be wrong, because the goverrnment owes them what they were promised. But that is a discussion for another thread, not for this thread.

 

[Sailka]

So, you want the freedom to choose to spend your tax dollars on health insurance?

Can everyone else exercise that right too? After all, if you and I both agree that we should be free to spend our income as we see fit, then maybe there are other people out there just like us!

If there are enough people like us, who want to help people directly, without involving the government, then maybe we don’t need the government to be involved at all?

                                                                                                                                                                                          **Why exclude government?  Didn't know the Best Health Systems in world are all National, and in  Canada Provincial?    French Health care rated Best in world. I have relatives and in-laws there.   And they cost less than half the per-capta expenditure than we spend, because are tens of thousands of   health Businesses, with vast bureaucracies to  deny Needs and insure big profits in USA.  And they do not have long lines.   Their results are much better nationally,  especially  infants, than ours.   Our tens of thousands of businesses offer Best health care to only  the Monied  people. Am Currently experiencing same.  Our Problem is that our entire economy is directed at  Health care Business Profits.   **
                                                
                                                                                           Know the highest rated health system in USA?    Catholic  system, non-profit, "low"  overhead, like National systems are.  Plenty of doctors, businesses supported, modest profits, by them.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Is charity currently solving the issue for them? Will a tax cut result in charity solving the issue for them? Is charity going to fund the premiums or the delivery of service for 1/5 of you. What about illness that requires ongoing treatment, is charity going to foot the cost?

I get the sense that you are not clear on the definition of Christian Charity, and have interpreted my references to Christian Charity as some sort of revenue substitute that would match, dollar for dollar, government tax revenue.

Let me clarify:

According to newadvent.org, (source:newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm)), Christian Charity can be defined as "the habit, desire, or act of relieving the physical, mental, moral, or spiritual needs of one’s fellows."

That being said, when I say that government interference undermines our call to Christian Charity, what I referring to is that people frequently believe that they do not need to personally respond to the needs of the poor or the sick because their politicians have convinced them that their nanny government is taking care of it. Therefore, people become hardened toward those in need, and often assume that those who are in need are simply not taking advantage of the vast government resources their politicians promised in the last election.

The resurgence in Christian Charity that I am calling for is comprehensive- it isn’t just an increase in monetary charity, but a revival of the sense that what we do, in every aspect of our lives, affects other people, and that we are all called to go above and beyond our indivdiual interests to ensure that our lives have a positive impact on those around us.

That being said, Christian Charity would be recognized in numerous ways, for example:

Doctors who would have ordinarily refused to see an indigent patient decide to do more pro bono work because they know that person really has nowhere else to go, whereas right now they don’t think twice about turning away the uninsured because they figure that they lose enough revenue to medicaid/medicare billing as it is.

Medical research firms might start releasing new medications as soon as they are available, instead of scheduling them to coincide with patent expiration schedules, because they understand that their decisions to withhold prescription medications in this way is clearly harmful to those in need.

Despite what you say, people are actually capable of doing good things without the government being involved.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Those giving in the spirit of Christian charity do so because of the ‘spiritual benefits’ they receive, and government redistribution negates this, therefore it must be bad. It also interferes with liberty (a tired argument). End of story, zero room to move.

Yes, that is a very good summary of one of my points-however, I never mentioned the spiritual benefits of Christian Charity, but I agree that is an important aspect.

I would have thought those giving would do so out of caring for others welfare first and foremost.

Are you implying that “genuine concern for the welfare of others” and “the spiritual benefits of Christian Charity” are somehow mutually exclusive?

That is a mindbending assertion- I might just put that comment up in a new thread and see how many secular humanists come out of the shadows to applaud it.

Isn’t the debate around whether government is the best means to this end etc.

Yes, that is exactly what this debate is about: the fact that government programs are not the best means to increase Christian Charity.

 

[Sailka]

I get the sense that you are not clear on the definition of Christian Charity, and have interpreted my references to Christian Charity as some sort of revenue substitute that would match, dollar for dollar, government tax revenue.

Let me clarify:

According to newadvent.org, (source:newadvent.org/cathen/03592a.htm)), Christian Charity can be defined as "the habit, desire, or act of relieving the physical, mental, moral, or spiritual needs of one’s fellows."

That being said, when I say that government interference undermines our call to Christian Charity, what I referring to is that people frequently believe that they do not need to personally respond to the needs of the poor or the sick because their politicians have convinced them that their nanny government is taking care of it. Therefore, people become hardened toward those in need, and often assume that those who are in need are simply not taking advantage of the vast government resources their politicians promised in the last election.

The resurgence in Christian Charity that I am calling for is comprehensive- it isn’t just an increase in monetary charity, but a revival of the sense that what we do, in every aspect of our lives, affects other people, and that we are all called to go above and beyond our indivdiual interests to ensure that our lives have a positive impact on those around us.

That being said, Christian Charity would be recognized in numerous ways, for example:

Doctors who would have ordinarily refused to see an indigent patient decide to do more pro bono work because they know that person really has nowhere else to go, whereas right now they don’t think twice about turning away the uninsured because they figure that they lose enough revenue to medicaid/medicare billing as it is.

Medical research firms might start releasing new medications as soon as they are available, instead of scheduling them to coincide with patent expiration schedules, because they understand that their decisions to withhold prescription medications in this way is clearly harmful to those in need.

Despite what you say, people are actually capable of doing good things without the government being involved.

                                                                                                                                                                                          Indeed businesses are 'capable'  of doing good, as long as can tax deduction it or does not interfere with business much.

                                                                                           Luckily we are involved with the Biggest Charity, lowest overhead  in the  USA > Catholic Charities and  Medical systems, with very much free work  like  Knights of Columbus, etc.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

First, would like to point out that you are in “Step 4” of the pattern I laid out earlier today.

To respond to your implied accusation that I hate not only sick and poor people, but also old people:

I am against social security. It has grown beyond its original intent, and has now become an expensive entitlement program that would perfom better if it was allowed to be rolled over into private investment accounts.

For whom, exactly? Investment firms working on commission? What happens if they mess up? The person whose private investment account is pretty much up the creek without a paddle, aren’t they?

It’s all good, though because the investment firm got its pound of flesh up front and that’s all that really matters.

 

[rtconstant]

This is getting exhausting. You are relying on the same repetetive pattern:

Pot meet kettle.

First, you state that US healthcare is broken.

Well, when 40% of the population feels that preventative health care is to expensive, when we rank amongst the lowest in the first world in almost every excepted standard of measurement in health care and we pay as individuals and as a government more per capita for less coverage than most of the rest of first world what do you call it?

Second, you declare that something must be done.

Yes, I do.

Third, you declare that “Universal Healthcare” is something, and conclude that it must be done.

Well, yes obviously UHC is “something”. If you had bothered to actually read my posts as opposed to jumping to paranoid conclusions you may have noticed that I said I think it is a good solution based on the evidence that it is working well for most of the first world. I have also allowed that there may be other alternatives but I like UHC because it has a verifiable record. But sure there could be other methods.

Fourth, you declare that anyone opposed to you is greedy, ignorant of the “facts,” and hates poor people.

That is false and you’re aware of it. Infact it has been those who are opposed to UHC in this thread that has declared that those who are for it are simply “envious” of those that have good insurance. So in fact while some here are calling people greedy their on your side not mine. As to being ignorant of the facts I know you’re not you’ve had them displayed to you but you have simply dismissed them. As to your disposition towards the poor I can’t say one way or the other.

Fifth, you declare yourself the winner, assert that anyone who disagrees that you have won has simply ignored your evidence.

I haven’t won anything. I simply said that it isn’t realistic to argue that UHC doesn’t work or is devastating as you and others have been asserting. The fact that most of the 1st world does well with it and in fact enjoy better health and coverage than we do in almost every way and pay less for all of that then we do per capita means that we here at the very least are in no position to really criticize them. It isn’t about winning, its about what works they have a better system by almost every measurement. The only thing we do well in is waiting times and we’re still behind 5 other UHC countries in that category.

Finally, you attempt to change the course of the discussion to how we should implement your plan.

Once, more that isn’t so. It is you and those who agree with you that have more or less suggested that UHC cannot work for us because our government isn’t capable of doing it. That UHC works isn’t debatable but whether it would work here (in The States) is. That really is at the center of what we’re discussing here isn’t it?

 

[cynic]

The resurgence in Christian Charity that I am calling for is comprehensive- it isn’t just an increase in monetary charity, but a revival of the sense that what we do, in every aspect of our lives, affects other people, and that we are all called to go above and beyond our indivdiual interests to ensure that our lives have a positive impact on those around us.

That being said, Christian Charity would be recognized in numerous ways, for example:

Doctors who would have ordinarily refused to see an indigent patient decide to do more pro bono work because they know that person really has nowhere else to go, whereas right now they don’t think twice about turning away the uninsured because they figure that they lose enough revenue to medicaid/medicare billing as it is. Medical research firms might start releasing new medications as soon as they are available, instead of scheduling them to coincide with patent expiration schedules, because they understand that their decisions to withhold prescription medications in this way is clearly harmful to those in need.
Despite what you say, people are actually capable of doing good things without the government being involved.

And this comprehensive charity would result in free ongoing drug treatment for cancer and heart disease patients (for eg.) who are uninsured, in all cases.

Not everyone is a Christian, most people in western countries aren’t at present. Combine this with some libertarian utopia, where fending for yourself is the official ideal, and relying on the generosity of others would seem hopelessly unrealistic. But it sounds good.