Well then could we easily get stuff that shouldn't be accessible? If anything, we should cut down on drug consumption and increase healthy food consumption. That's a much better drug.
Well then could we easily get stuff that shouldn't be accessible? If anything, we should cut down on drug consumption and increase healthy food consumption. That's a much better drug.
I agree that healthcare should be considered a right. As a developed society, i think there is a social responsibility to care for the infirm. In that sense, I support universal healthcare.
I will address the latter part of your point and assert that the United States has not adopted universal healthcare. Neither are there any plans to implement a system of universal healthcare.
I couldn't agree more, but even there we have big business using pesticides and other chemical agents to mass produce food. Their motivation in doing so, of course, is money. These pesticides and chemical agents, unsurprisingly, cause illness in the human body. Organic is best, but unfortunately, it is most expensive.
Still, fruits and veges, even if they aren't organic, are a better choice than processed foods.
I believe its a right too. But I do not believe it should be free. Even in Australia you have doctors who do not bulk bill and who charge an extra fee on top of the bulk bill rebate they get. This is a practice which the stupid Howard government allowed to thrive and now its here to stay.
My view is that doctors should charge what they want, patients can then choose to pay it or not. The taxpayer should be left out of the equation altogether.
Well in Germany, as in other countries, there is a public health care system. I look with great concern at Germany, being foolish enough to bail out Greece. Everyone looks to Germany for the free handouts. Eventually even Angela will realize there is no more money left to cover all these expenses.
There is indeed. And very good it is, too. However, I think there are better ways to implement universal healthcare than the German system.
At the risk of sounding patriotic - I'm really not - I protest the collectivisation of responsibility. This was not decided by national plebiscite, Calvin. So far as I'm aware, most Germans opposed bailing out the major banks, let alone Greece. I was one of them.
There is not money, as such, but you ignore the entire concept of national debt. The deficit can be made up by any of the following over an extended period of time:
*Efficiencies made in all areas of public spending
*Cutting certain major projects
*Making certain investments of public money in the economy
*Cutting public services
*Taking into full public ownership certain highly profitable industries
*Taking part-privatised industries into full public ownership
There are others I've thought of, but this is a good analysis.
Notes:
Efficiencies mean quite surgical methods of getting the same quality of results at a lower cost.
Cutting public services is something I highly disapprove of and wouldn't recommend, partly because I recognise their social value, and partly because it would ultimately cause more economic harm than it would save in the short term.
Full public ownership, as opposed to technical public ownership. This way, a greater proportion of the profits can be counted as surplus revenue.
Part-privatised industries include, for example, in Britain, the postal service, minor aspects of healthcare and military industry.
Health care is a right in all around Europe, I guess.
There is compulsory insurance system in the matters of public concern. For example if you have a car, there should be also liability insurance on it, the same way if you have a salary, there should be health premium cut too.
Why ?
Because, statistic proves that there is a possıbility about someone to make a traffic accident and everyone needs to health care in sometime.
These issues concern everyone in a society, so that it is logical find a solution for everyone by common funds.
There is compulsory insurance system in the matters of public concern. For example if you have a car, there should be also liability insurance on it, the same way if you have a salary, there should be health premium cut too.
Why ?
Because, statistic proves that there is a possıbility about someone to make a traffic accident and everyone needs to health care in sometime.
These issues concern everyone in a society, so that it is logical find a solution for everyone by common funds.
I find it interesting that the very people that advocated "privatization" of Social Security are the ones vehemently against universal healthcare. We are all paying for healthcare (both directly and indirectly) anyway; and we’re all paying more for it every time some uninsured person goes to the emergency room. So why not get what we are all paying for? And, more to the point, why not get our money’s worth? What's so un-American about that?
Economically-speaking, the ACA will arguably not give us our "money's worth". It does not do enough to reduce costs.
People should have the ability to obtain health care, perhaps passing laws about how much insurence csn be, or offering more options.
But the federal government should not be in charge, that gives them the ability to decide who is a "hopeless case" and thus is not universal health care, but government determined health care.
I have all the reason to suspect that they will deem worthy ness of medicines, because they do it all the time with other forms of assestance and it is metered out in such a poor fasion.
But the federal government should not be in charge, that gives them the ability to decide who is a "hopeless case" and thus is not universal health care, but government determined health care.
I have all the reason to suspect that they will deem worthy ness of medicines, because they do it all the time with other forms of assestance and it is metered out in such a poor fasion.
clax, et al,
Health Care, Education, and support of Charities, are not rights. But they do exemplify the standard of living, the affluence of a nation, and the moral focus of a nation.
What does it mean when a nation determines an individual is not worthy of medical care, food, and shelter. It means that the nation and its people have put a value on human life, and that the person that has been determined to be unworthy of medical care, food and shelter do not have the prerequisite value.
Only the more advanced societies look at human life as something of value and strive to maintain its best condition. America is not among those societies. It is a capitalist nation to the extent that "maximizing the wealth of the shareholder" is all important; a paradigm above all others. And if in the course of maximizing wealth, those of lesser value must be sacrificed, then it is so.
It is just the way it is; the way of life. Animalistic - in that only the strong and wealthy survive; a Darwinian impact.
Most Respectfully,
R
Health Care, Education, and support of Charities, are not rights. But they do exemplify the standard of living, the affluence of a nation, and the moral focus of a nation.
(COMMENT)
What does it mean when a nation determines an individual is not worthy of medical care, food, and shelter. It means that the nation and its people have put a value on human life, and that the person that has been determined to be unworthy of medical care, food and shelter do not have the prerequisite value.
Only the more advanced societies look at human life as something of value and strive to maintain its best condition. America is not among those societies. It is a capitalist nation to the extent that "maximizing the wealth of the shareholder" is all important; a paradigm above all others. And if in the course of maximizing wealth, those of lesser value must be sacrificed, then it is so.
It is just the way it is; the way of life. Animalistic - in that only the strong and wealthy survive; a Darwinian impact.
Most Respectfully,
R
To not put a value at some point on life is not realistic. Because life is value, but there is other value too. It can be a discomforting thought at first, but reality is not always comforting.
The fact is that there are costs associated with healthcare and someone has to pay them. In doing so, even if it is the government, that value used to save a person's life may well have been taken from some other place. It is about costs and benefits. If there was some hypothetical situation where a man could be saved at a nominal cost equal to GDP, I doubt any nation, even with healthcare established as "right" would pay it- regardless of their views on human life because at the end of the day, the net losses would likely be greater than the benefits. In saving that one man, you might hurt millions of others.
I also don't like the notion that America does not care about human life or strive to maintain it in its best condition. I do not think that is a fair point to make. For one, look at end of life treatments. Americans greatly outspend the rest of the world in trying to keep their old alive in what best condition they can. They not only outspend, but they try more- they try more surgeries, they try more experimental treatments, they try as much as they can. Doctors even push more for procedures. It is one of the often forgotten but quite substantial reasons why Americans pay so much for healthcare- end of life costs are tremendously expensive and where a similar situation in France might end with the family letting the person die in peace, Americans will often fight to the end at whatever cost to keep that person alive as long as possible. It is very much a cultural thing as it is a result of the system. America values life- perhaps too much. I recommend Atul Gawande's writing on this if it interests you.
You are misusing the term Darwinian as is often misused in today's world. It is a disservice to the man who found immense beauty in humanity, evolution, and natural selection while for almost his whole life struggling with the implications of what survival of the fittest in nature meant for man. Social darwinism is not darwinism and it disregards what the theory of evolution actually tells us. Sometimes cooperation is the best action and evolution encompasses that. Small quib, but to me an important one (as someone who studied biology).
I think you are wrong, myp. Canada doesn't make their people who happen to come down with a debilitating illness lose their house and their life savings. Do Canadians come across the border for certain treatments? Yes, they do, but that is really a limited circumstance. The US is good at cancer treatment. But we are at the bottom of the list for medical treatments for other medical conditions. All told, we suck. Not only do we provide inferior medical care (based on unbiased statistics), but we charge more than twice the average world-wide cost for that care. If you have a job, wahooooooo!!!! If you don't have a job, shame on you... Let's hope that the corporate gods favor you. They are making life and death decisions for you (NOT the death panels that you were sucked into believing).
(For those Republicans out there, a job is what the peons do, health care may only be for the privileged.) Let's take two examples------
Sweden is the most liberal, socialistic European country... How are they doing? Just fine, in fact, they are becoming even more generous to their middle class.
How is Ireland doing? (the most austere, cost cutting, social job slashing, and fiscally balancing country known to man). They aren't doing so well. So, if you Obama bashing retards think that Obama is a sciolaist
(For those Republicans out there, a job is what the peons do, health care may only be for the privileged.) Let's take two examples------
Sweden is the most liberal, socialistic European country... How are they doing? Just fine, in fact, they are becoming even more generous to their middle class.
How is Ireland doing? (the most austere, cost cutting, social job slashing, and fiscally balancing country known to man). They aren't doing so well. So, if you Obama bashing retards think that Obama is a sciolaist
You are saying I am wrong about what? You bring up a lot of points, but none as far as I can tell that prove anything I said in my previous post was wrong.
The system is not good. I am for reform, but all reform is not equal and all reform is not good either.
You make a lot of one-lined arguments without citing any sources and you have made comparisons based on very small points (again without proof) which do not justify the whole picture. Not exactly fair. But frankly, I don't even care about that. We cannot just point to other countries and say, wow what they have looks great, we should do it. Because that does not mean anything. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Way too many things vary for something like that. We can look to others and the past as guides, but just because it works for someone does not mean it will work for us. And more importantly, just because you like the outcomes of another country does not mean the outcomes could not be even better than that or that a change in US policy would not mean a change in their outcomes too.
Sweden is a much smaller economy, a much more uniform (socioeconomically) populous, that has some natural advantages per capita that we do not have. Ireland has a lot of issues especially given the Euro crisis.
My point is that you are simplifying matters too much. It isn't that simple. There are wayyyy more variables than you or most of the political players are accounting for. Sorry, but things aren't always simple and you can't just throw variables out the window because of an ideology or because it is too hard to compute or statistically analyze an issue.
And I won't respond to the remarks about Republicans, "Obama bashing retards", etc. You only hurt your ethos through such words and they have no place in civil and intellectual exchange.
On a side note, I find it somewhat amusing, but moreso disappointing, that so many people still think in terms of ideology and party lines. You accuse me of being an evil rightest and some people on these very forums accuse me of being an evil leftist. Truth is, I care about the truth and rational thought more than the left or right. You can label as you please, but it does not phase me.
The system is not good. I am for reform, but all reform is not equal and all reform is not good either.
You make a lot of one-lined arguments without citing any sources and you have made comparisons based on very small points (again without proof) which do not justify the whole picture. Not exactly fair. But frankly, I don't even care about that. We cannot just point to other countries and say, wow what they have looks great, we should do it. Because that does not mean anything. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Way too many things vary for something like that. We can look to others and the past as guides, but just because it works for someone does not mean it will work for us. And more importantly, just because you like the outcomes of another country does not mean the outcomes could not be even better than that or that a change in US policy would not mean a change in their outcomes too.
Sweden is a much smaller economy, a much more uniform (socioeconomically) populous, that has some natural advantages per capita that we do not have. Ireland has a lot of issues especially given the Euro crisis.
My point is that you are simplifying matters too much. It isn't that simple. There are wayyyy more variables than you or most of the political players are accounting for. Sorry, but things aren't always simple and you can't just throw variables out the window because of an ideology or because it is too hard to compute or statistically analyze an issue.
And I won't respond to the remarks about Republicans, "Obama bashing retards", etc. You only hurt your ethos through such words and they have no place in civil and intellectual exchange.
On a side note, I find it somewhat amusing, but moreso disappointing, that so many people still think in terms of ideology and party lines. You accuse me of being an evil rightest and some people on these very forums accuse me of being an evil leftist. Truth is, I care about the truth and rational thought more than the left or right. You can label as you please, but it does not phase me.
Yes, you are right about my political bashing polemics. I again apologize.
The truth is that we spend twice as much as the rest of the industrialized countries for our crappy health care. That was another one-lined argument that is backed up by the World Health Organisation. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
When WWII caused FDR to freeze wages, employers started to use healthcare (and other) benefits to attract the best workers, in an effort to get around the wage freeze. Hospitals had just started to band together and offer 'health insurance', so the two forces combined to make health care only available to the employed and/or well to do. Today, this country is alone in causing financial ruin to those that encounter catastrophic health problems.
That is not worthy of such a rich country, and it will continue if SCOTUS produces the expected rebuke of Obama's lame attempt at fairness in healthcare tomorrow morning. If they do, then it will be a political instead of a moral decision. The people of the US hate Obamacare, but they like its provisions. Go figure, the rest of the world is so far ahead of us in healthcare, it makes our science/math retardation seem trivial.
The truth is that we spend twice as much as the rest of the industrialized countries for our crappy health care. That was another one-lined argument that is backed up by the World Health Organisation. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
When WWII caused FDR to freeze wages, employers started to use healthcare (and other) benefits to attract the best workers, in an effort to get around the wage freeze. Hospitals had just started to band together and offer 'health insurance', so the two forces combined to make health care only available to the employed and/or well to do. Today, this country is alone in causing financial ruin to those that encounter catastrophic health problems.
That is not worthy of such a rich country, and it will continue if SCOTUS produces the expected rebuke of Obama's lame attempt at fairness in healthcare tomorrow morning. If they do, then it will be a political instead of a moral decision. The people of the US hate Obamacare, but they like its provisions. Go figure, the rest of the world is so far ahead of us in healthcare, it makes our science/math retardation seem trivial.
Our healthcare system is broken, but not all reform is good. I actually think Obamacare could potentially make things worse over the long run. It does not do much to cut costs, yet it hands over a lot of contracts to Big Health at government cost. It is a very corporatist reform, which is why in the form it passed the insurance companies and Big Pharma hopped on board.
And I disagree about the SCOTUS decision- it will not be political or moral. It will be legal.
And I disagree about the SCOTUS decision- it will not be political or moral. It will be legal.
Yes it is, Obama had to do something to get it passed, and of course he sold out to big Pharma and big Health insurance. Not that he wanted to, but it was the only path to "improvement". You may disagree with the definition of 'improvement', but something needed to be done. We have crap for healthcare and we are paying through the nose for it. People are being bankrupt. Your definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may differ from mine, but I think that the fear of bankruptcy interferes with my pursuit of happiness. Now that the Supremes have bloviated, a "tax" is the rule of the land.
I'm old, so let's tax the crap out of the young. Grin, your opinion may vary.
You are awfully forgiving of Obama, yet ruthless against the Republicans. Not exactly fair.
Anyway, everything is about cost-benefit. And adding that many patients at government cost is a very real cost- a very real cost for those who will use the healthcare too. As for your remark about letting the young pay for it- well screw you too- that is awfully egotistical and selfish (ironically at the same time you act like you are doing the future or country some kind of huge favor with this bill- those two points don't go together- the young ARE the future).
But seriously, let's stick to the facts instead of the opinions that do not matter. This healthcare bill does not tackle the real issues. It does not have enough of a supply-side impact. It also does not mean everyone will get healthcare, ironically. Given the SCOTUS ruling, a state can reject the medicare expansion and that will just mean everyone who can't afford insurance will be allowed to sign a waiver that exempts them from the whole law. Given that a lot of it is Federally funded, the states might give in, but even if they do, you will likely see a portion of the population pay the fine over buying insurance depending on costs- and this bill will likely lead to highers premiums so the difference could potentially be quite large.
At the end of the day, a lot of people still are not looking at the facts- especially in politics. I get the feeling you are like that too from your posts here- correct me if I am wrong and no disrespect intended. A lot of people have this caveman attitude that is either "healthcare good" or "healthcare bad". That doesn't mean anything.
Because of the history I mentioned, this country had healthcare shoehorned into employment. And I am not looking to provide lazy freeloaders with free benefits. I just think that even employed people that don't have golden insurance policies shouldn't have to give up their life savings and mortgage their house, and then lose even that when a catastrophic illness devastates their lives.
No other industrialized nation has that consequence. And for twice the cost of the average, we are 37th in health care quality. That is not caveman attitude, that is common sense. When was the last time you read about a bake sale in Sweden to provide funds for a sick toddler?
Where did you get "healthcare good" or "healthcare bad" out of my posts? Yes, I have posted stupid drivel, but Obama is trying to move us forward towards sensible healthcare, and the Republicans are trying to stop that progress with fear mongering. That he capitulated to the drug and insurance companies does not make that effort meaningless, it merely makes it a less favorable path forward.
No other industrialized nation has that consequence. And for twice the cost of the average, we are 37th in health care quality. That is not caveman attitude, that is common sense. When was the last time you read about a bake sale in Sweden to provide funds for a sick toddler?
Where did you get "healthcare good" or "healthcare bad" out of my posts? Yes, I have posted stupid drivel, but Obama is trying to move us forward towards sensible healthcare, and the Republicans are trying to stop that progress with fear mongering. That he capitulated to the drug and insurance companies does not make that effort meaningless, it merely makes it a less favorable path forward.
No one thinks that. Not even most Republicans. Reform comes in many forms though and pushing the cost to government without actually reducing per-person costs much is not exactly changing the scenario you just described- it is just pushing it to the future or to other people.
You can't just compare countries like that. It is a lot easier for a smaller, more demographically even country like Sweden that also has a good per capita resource base to implement the sort of healthcare they have than it is for a very diverse, very large country of 300 million people. Apples and oranges.
Because you made it seem like any reform towards greater coverage is good reform. That's just being intellectually dishonest.
If the initial problem was healthcare was too costly, adding new customers and not reducing costs does not exactly solve the problem. Are you also this lenient on Wall St. corporatism- all the help big finance gets? I am guessing not despite their arguments being just as sincere as Big Pharma and Big insurances'
adsf of the afskdslsjdlkjlskjdf
Sorry, ADM or what ever, your site won't let me post for some stupid reason. Believe that I tried a few different ways. But this is becoming too much of a pain in the ass. Hope you do well, you make a few points that I believe are heart-felt. I have a new respect for the conservative point of view. You are a gentleman.
Sorry, ADM or what ever, your site won't let me post for some stupid reason. Believe that I tried a few different ways. But this is becoming too much of a pain in the ass. Hope you do well, you make a few points that I believe are heart-felt. I have a new respect for the conservative point of view. You are a gentleman.
Similar threads
