Universal health insurance

[Oscarthecat]

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?

That’s all very nice rhetoric, but you still haven’t answered the question I posed several posts ago-

Why, if the Canadian system is so successful, is one of the founders of the Canadian Healthcare system declaring that it is in crisis and advocating a greater move toward private healthcare?

While you’re at it, maybe you could respond to the data comparing the US and Canadian systems I posted a few posts back, too.

 

[cynic]

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.
.

It sounds like you think the process is more important than the goal.

In other words, people receiving treatement is of no value if the means by which it is funded isn’t in line with Christian charity. Couldn’t agree less.

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

If somebody puts what they ‘get’ out of giving ahead of the best outcome for the largest number of people, then yes.

If someone genuinely believes charity can more effectively deliver for the poor than a government, then that’s different.

 

[c659smith]

Pot meet kettle.

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?

Yes, I do.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Would you give free health care to the 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants? who will pay for them?

Do you think we have enough doctors and hospitals to add these people to our medical system?

Does Cananda and other socialized heathcare systems give free health care to illegal immigrants?

 

[rtconstant]

I will restate the main positions that have been provided against UHC, for your benefit.

1. Evidence has been posted against UHC. You may choose not to recognize it as such, but it has been posted.

Not really, singular opinions, anecdotal and unsubstantiated scenarios have been presented, that really isn’t evidence.

1. 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.

Oh I read some of that but your objections really aren’t based on any sort of actual data its all theorizing from an arbitrary view point. Also, the WHO was not the only organization that I’ve mentioned. However, I understand that people on these forums hate research that requires anything other than a hyperlink.

1. 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.

Well, you’ve laid out your position, and that’s fine. That isn’t any sort of objective evidence though.

1. 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.

Once more this seems to be at the crux of them matter. Those against UHC (on this thread anyway), seem to strongly feel that the US government is not capable of doing what other nations have done. I’m not sure you guys keep bringing it up when you seem to get aggravated when I suggest we discuss that. Because really if that is position then we’re talking about problems that are much larger than UHC vs a private medical industry.

1. 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.

Once again the position seems to be that our government is simply not capable of doing this. To me this is your strongest argument and it is disturbing. Is it your belief that our government system has gone off track so far that even providing for the basic needs of its citizens is beyond it? I’m very interested in your opinion here.

1. 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.

This is your weakest argument. So we as a nation should not do what is right so that we can allow individuals to have the chance to do what is right? Since that isn’t being done where does that leave those in need?

1. 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.

What data do you have to back that up? Europe still progresses in medical research, and seem to be drawing more individuals into the field as they have more doctors per capita than we do. I used to work for the nation’s largest research laboratory and esoteric testing lab and we were a European company.

Finally, since YOU want to radically change the entire medical system in the US, it is on YOU to demonstrate that the system you advocate is substantially better so as to warrant the unavoidable social and economic upheaval that would spread through the entire medical system, including the educational system, the medical education financing system, and disenfranchizing the millions of people in the US who are happy with their current health care program.

Well, I and others have provided as to why it is a better system. We’re not the ones being reserved on the actual data. Second it would be up to you to demonstrate how millions of people would be “disenfranchized” by giving them more coverage. Finally, I’m surprised you would even try to approach it from that stand point as the current system doesn’t mind disenfanchizing millions of people.

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.

And I’m saying lets talk about that. If you believe our governmental system is so broken that good health coverage is beyond its grasp then we’ve got serious issues.

 

[cynic]

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.

The author also writes a blog for the Cato institute. Worth noting.

Also, blaming an ethnic minority is at best dubious. How a system deliveries for those with low purchasing power is one measure of how successful it is.

 

[Oscarthecat]

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.

Again, nothing is free. I don’t know who really believes that healthcare is free.

I’m saying that all of the systems involved in healthcare need to foster an atmosphere of Christian Charity, be allowed to return to a genuinely free market system, and emphasizing a return to personal responsibility instead of the current culture of entitlement that thinks everything should be free.

Not everyone is a Christian, in fact most people in the western countries aren’t.

No, not everyone is Christian, but everyone is capable of developing and acting in accord with a well formed conscience. But, in short, it seems that what you are saying is that human beings are not capable of behaving charitably toward one another?

Combine this with some libertarian utopia society, where fending for yourself is the official ideal, and relying on the generosity of others would seem hopelessly unrealistic. But it sounds good.

Good point, much better to force people to bend to your will by using the government to take their money and redistribute as you see fit, rather than take the risk of what might happen when people are free.

Interestingly, this is similar to the point of view of the old european monarchies- the people need to be ruled because they couldn’t possibly manage to govern themselves.

I am beginning to understand where you’re coming from.

 

[rtconstant]

That’s all very nice rhetoric, but you still haven’t answered the question I posed several posts ago-

Why, if the Canadian system is so successful, is one of the founders of the Canadian Healthcare system declaring that it is in crisis and advocating a greater move toward private healthcare?

I don’t know why is it that the system enjoys such popularity amongst actual citizens. Could the Canadian system be improved? Sure, absolutely, but I’m not sure what you think you’re gaining by pointing that out. They still out perform us.

While you’re at it, maybe you could respond to the data comparing the US and Canadian systems I posted a few posts back, too.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised you posted that as it illustrates one of the major problems with our current system. People in our current system often don’t seek out preventative care since often times these things are not covered in insurance. That is why life expectancy is one of the gauges for quality of health care.

 

[cynic]

I’m saying that all of the systems involved in healthcare need to foster an atmosphere of Christian Charity, be allowed to return to a genuinely free market system, and emphasizing a return to personal responsibility instead of the current culture of entitlement that thinks everything should be free//
.

Shouldn’t those who cannot pay their way *be *entitled to free care?

Why is a ‘genuinely free market system’ held up as some sacred thing anyway. Business exists primarily for profit. The service provided is incidental (at least with regards to shareholders and management, who are ultimately the source of capital)

 

[Oscarthecat]

It sounds like you think the process is more important than the goal.

Yes. Thank you. Exactly.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right.

In other words, people receiving treatement is of no value if the means by which it is funded isn’t in line with Christian charity.

No, there is value because they are at least getting the treatment. But to stop there is to settle for a utilitarian solution. The system providing them that treatment would be inherently flawed and doomed to failure if it isn’t properly grounded on the sound values that are found in Christian Charity. There is more value to the treatment provided when it is given and recieved in the spirit of Christian Charity, rather than procured under threat of government force.

Couldn’t agree less.

That’s fine, I kind of expected it.

If somebody puts what they ‘get’ out of giving ahead of the best outcome for the largest number of people, then yes.

Well, now, that wouldn’t be very charitable, now, would it?

If someone genuinely believes charity can more effectively deliver for the poor than a government, then that’s different.

EXACTLY.

 

[rtconstant]

Would you give free health care to the 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants? who will pay for them?

Would “I”? Sure they’re people, that’s me though. As to who would pay for it? Probably the illegals as they often do pay into the system they just don’t gain all the benefits from it. It is a good question that you ask, but to be honest I don’t think any of us could really accurately answer that one until the US settles on how its going to deal with and view those entering our country.

Do you think we have enough doctors and hospitals to add these people to our medical system?

Not sure. I know we are relatively low on doctors in comparison to other countries but I don’t know if we’re in danger or anything. We don’t do bad in wait times which to me suggests that we seem to have a decent spread of doctors. But within the context that I think you’re getting at I’m not sure. If everyone living here was suddenly able to enjoy full medical care we might have an issue with our current amount of docs. Good question.

Does Cananda and other socialized heathcare systems give free health care to illegal immigrants?

I can’t speak for all of them. I know some do. Sweden does for instance. I believe that France does as well. I’m actually not sure about Canada I’m sponsoring a Canadian for citizenship here in The States and she says that that foreigners do not get treatment for free like a citizen would. Which is reasonable, may not be the way I’d do it but its reasonable.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Also, blaming an ethnic minority is at best dubious. How a system deliveries for those with low purchasing power is one measure of how successful it is.

Ok, let’s add it up-

now you’re implying that I hate poor people, sick people, old people, AND minorities?

The author was pointing out how the fact that some minorities in the US have health problems that are not as prevalent in Canada skews the numbers. You call it blaming, I call it explaining the data.

Tomato, Tomato. (That doesn’t really “pop” as well in print, does it)

 

[Oscarthecat]

Not really, singular opinions, anecdotal and unsubstantiated scenarios have been presented, that really isn’t evidence.

Oh I read some of that but your objections really aren’t based on any sort of actual data its all theorizing from an arbitrary view point. Also, the WHO was not the only organization that I’ve mentioned. However, I understand that people on these forums hate research that requires anything other than a hyperlink.

Well, you’ve laid out your position, and that’s fine. That isn’t any sort of objective evidence though.

Once more this seems to be at the crux of them matter. Those against UHC (on this thread anyway), seem to strongly feel that the US government is not capable of doing what other nations have done. I’m not sure you guys keep bringing it up when you seem to get aggravated when I suggest we discuss that. Because really if that is position then we’re talking about problems that are much larger than UHC vs a private medical industry.

Once again the position seems to be that our government is simply not capable of doing this. To me this is your strongest argument and it is disturbing. Is it your belief that our government system has gone off track so far that even providing for the basic needs of its citizens is beyond it? I’m very interested in your opinion here.

This is your weakest argument. So we as a nation should not do what is right so that we can allow individuals to have the chance to do what is right? Since that isn’t being done where does that leave those in need?

What data do you have to back that up? Europe still progresses in medical research, and seem to be drawing more individuals into the field as they have more doctors per capita than we do. I used to work for the nation’s largest research laboratory and esoteric testing lab and we were a European company.

Well, I and others have provided as to why it is a better system. We’re not the ones being reserved on the actual data. Second it would be up to you to demonstrate how millions of people would be “disenfranchized” by giving them more coverage. Finally, I’m surprised you would even try to approach it from that stand point as the current system doesn’t mind disenfanchizing millions of people.

And I’m saying lets talk about that. If you believe our governmental system is so broken that good health coverage is beyond its grasp then we’ve got serious issues.

I have already addressed all of your comments in previous posts.
Would you please respond to the question that I posed to you twice today?

 

[cynic]

Ok, let’s add it up-

now you’re implying that I hate poor people, sick people, old people, AND minorities?

I’ve havn’t implied that you hate anyone.

The author was pointing out how the fact that some minorities in the US have health problems that are not as prevalent in Canada skews the numbers. You call it blaming, I call it explaining the data.

And these health problems are genetic and associated with race? It would have been simpler to say “we have more people living in poverty here in the U.S”. No need to mention any minorities.

The fact that it’s mentioned would suggest the author believes one group to be less responsible than the rest of society, and that’s the reason for the lower life expectancy.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I don’t know why is it that the system enjoys such popularity amongst actual citizens. Could the Canadian system be improved? Sure, absolutely, but I’m not sure what you think you’re gaining by pointing that out. They still out perform us.

You didn’t answer the question.

Yeah, I was kind of surprised you posted that as it illustrates one of the major problems with our current system. People in our current system often don’t seek out preventative care since often times these things are not covered in insurance. That is why life expectancy is one of the gauges for quality of health care.

What are you talking about? The author specifically stated that the data revealed that people seek out preventative care MORE FREQUENTLY IN THE US.

Here, read it again:

“Probably the most surprising discovery of the paper was that Americans partake in more preventive care than Canadians.
(…)
As an economist, I attributed this finding to moral hazard: Canadians know that if they would get a disease that their government will pay for their care. Thus, they may be less motivated to ask for preventive services.”

I don’t know how you interpreted this as the author saying that americans don’t engage in preventative.

As an added bonus (for me, anyway), the author even seemed to support my assertion that government involvement reduces the perception of individual responsibility.

 

[cynic]

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

No, the end is not Christian Charity. The end is that somebody stays alive. If this is utilitarian then so be it.

 

[Caesar517]

No, the end is not Christian Charity. The end is that somebody stays alive. If this is utilitarian then so be it.

Utilitarianism and Christianity are not compatible.

 

[rtconstant]

You didn’t answer the question.

No, I just posed a more relevant question. But I would suspect that if you want to know why this man thinks the system needs to change you should read his statements. You might also want to take into account that Canada isn’t the only UHC country nor is it considered to be one of the best examples. Is it your contention that this one man’s opinion breaks UHC?

What are you talking about? The author specifically stated

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Shouldn’t those who cannot pay their way *be *entitled to free care?

Why is a ‘genuinely free market system’ held up as some sacred thing anyway. Business exists primarily for profit. The service provided is incidental (at least with regards to shareholders and management, who are ultimately the source of capital)

No. They should just shut up and go away. Who cares if they die? They’re part of the excess population anyway.

That’s the right wing idea, anyway.

 

[po18guy]

I choose to keep the disabled who are unable to work a job that has health coverage covered by the government. Everyone else keeps the option of buying private insurance. Why does everyone keep missing that aspect of my plan? Now if the stupid greedy insurance companies were to offer a beneficial plan to the disabled at the same cost they pay now for medicare then maybe we could get the government out of it. But they are only in it for the almighty dollar and will never even venture to do something like that.

And the aloof, uncaring, extremely inefficient federal government is somehow not interested in money?

 

[po18guy]

No. They should just shut up and go away. Who cares if they die? They’re part of the excess population anyway.

That’s the right wing idea, anyway.

Careful with that broad brush. Might get some on yourself.