How won't it let you post? And how did you post this? Please let me know if there are bugs so I can look into it and try to fix them.
How won't it let you post? And how did you post this? Please let me know if there are bugs so I can look into it and try to fix them.
Adequate health care for every citizen of a rich country like ours is not about freeloading to either the future or other people. If a life is threatened by illness, there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness. Janitors will always have a less endowed existence than hedge-fund managers, guaranteeing an incentive to work and achieve. Only if you believe that illness is the just rewards of slovenliness can you believe that the rich have more rights to be healthy than hard-working citizens.
Yes, I can. We are 37th on the list of industrialized nations for healthcare of the average citizen. We are the rotten apple. An orange is any country but us?
Well, you will have to explain to me how I am being dishonest. That is an insult that I will leave up to you to intellectually explain. Greater coverage is not a bad thing in my humble opinion.
Corporations, big Pharma, big insurance, big finance, and Wall St. are not people, despite what Mitt says. Adding new healthcare recipients does not make me 'lenient' on bottom line chasers. Pass that joint, please....
You have to factor in future costs. You can't just ignore them, even if it is in the name of greater healthcare coverage because fact of the matter is that if the program is not sustainable, then you aren't actually providing adequate coverage to everyone- namely to the people of the future.
Rights don't matter. They are subjective. The fact of the matter is that the rich will always get better healthcare- that is just how it is because they can afford it. Just like they can afford better food or better housing or better schools for their children or better vacations or almost better anything.
You really can't. There have been studies on this. Homogeneous populations have more similar needs. Heterogeneous populations have greater diversity in needs. Insurance is about risk-sharing so the differences in the population at large matter. If you look at the risk assessments done by insurance companies, you can see this.
It is because of this that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not the same as Obamacare Federally. When the variables change, all of the equations change too.
Because you are suggesting that any reform that increases coverage is good reform. Well what if we passed reform that said we would provide every American with as much coverage as they wanted, but in turn the costs meant that unemployment went from 8% to 40% and the national debt increased to the point where the US could no longer pay off its debt and would eventually renege on the healthcare promise? Extreme and unlikely example, sure, but it proves my point that any reform that increases coverage does not mean it is good. We need sustainable, cost-effective reform that increases coverage, not just any reform.
Corporations consist of people, but that is not the point here, so I'll drop it. You seem to be against big Insurance, etc. here, but I find it ironic that you so strongly support a corporatist bill that gives them tons of new customers and in turn profits at taxpayer costs (that bill is Obamacare). This was a corporate handout in many ways- it was not a cost-effective reform, but could possibly evolve to be one if enough people/states reject it or a Republican government interprets it differently next year. (or possibly even naturally through politics) That is yet to be seen though.
Every industrialized country on this planet except the United States has universal healthcare. We are the richest nation in the world. If you see a better way forward than ObamaCare, I'm listening.
Exactly, I am happy you agree.
Really? You are saying that RomneyCare won't work federally because we are too hetero? We are talking about human beings, here. We are talking about many countries with diverse populations that are above us in overall health measures. We are talking about including everyone in order to move forward, and you think ObamaCare is ignoring actuarial insurance statistics? I think you are painting an apple orange.
And here I thought I WAS talking about good reform. You may choose to view ObamaCare as bad reform, but I certainly never said that I would want a health care situation that ran unemployment to 40% or bankrupted our economy. I would love to hear either why ObamaCare would ruin our economy, or what would constitute better reform.
I did not support the mandate, I supported single payer. The fact that Obama had to swallow that pill to get the legislation through is known by all. I find it more disingenuous than ironic that you would assume that I think every single aspect of ObamaCare is perfect.
myp, et al,
I thought I'd wait, and let others weigh-in before answering.
This is a slippery slope.
(IMO) You are correct. There is no price you can place on a human life. Healthcare is a matter of liability. If there is a "Constitutional Right" to proper healthcare, then --- you are (in effect) placing an unlimited liability on healthcare. However, if healthcare is a benefit, then you are applying the "Hand Rule:"
Again, this is about "liability" and the "health of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry;" and not about benevolent healthcare.
Among others, these factors come together to set the stage for the cost, which then drives you logic on practical payments. But we must keep in mind that, all these factors that drive healthcare cost are based on "maximization of wealth" factors, and not truly a benevolent care for those that need care.
The problem with cut-throat, capitalistic drivers, when talking about healthcare is that capitalism (the maximization of wealth) trumps the positive medicine and benevolent care philosophies in every sector of industry that provides that care. And so, it by default, cannot allow healthcare to be a "right of man."
Healthcare is a business right, a commodity, it is a reimbursement for services and materials rendered. It is a luxury that one can either afford, or not afford. It is rare (very rare) to find healthcare in America that is based on need, and not on (ultimately) cost.
Yes, maybe I use a more controversial definition of the impact.
Most Respectfully,
R
I thought I'd wait, and let others weigh-in before answering.
(COMMENT)
This is a slippery slope.
(COMMENT)
(IMO) You are correct. There is no price you can place on a human life. Healthcare is a matter of liability. If there is a "Constitutional Right" to proper healthcare, then --- you are (in effect) placing an unlimited liability on healthcare. However, if healthcare is a benefit, then you are applying the "Hand Rule:"
- Benefit must be equal to (greater than) the probability times the liability. B=> (p)L (Economic Analysis of the Law by Judge Richard Posner)
(COMMENT)
Again, this is about "liability" and the "health of the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry;" and not about benevolent healthcare.
The level of care is directly connected to cost reimbursement. No healthcare facility operates at a loss for very long. Its revenues (all sources, public & private) must cover its operating costs.
The top entities in Insurance and Managed Care profited:
The Pharmaceutical Industry, the source of the wonder drugs, profits from care.
Doctors face about 17,000 malpractice suits annually. They have to try everything reasonable to avoid legal entanglements and accountability; with each award between $100K-$200K or $1.7B/year.
- HCA Holdings made $1,207M
- Community Health Systems made $280M
- Tenet Healthcare made $1,143.0M
- DaVita made $405.7M
- Universal Health Services made $230.2M
- Health Management Associates made $150.1M
The top entities in Insurance and Managed Care profited:
- UnitedHealth Group $4,634M
- WellPoint $2,887M
- Aetna 77 $1,766M
- Humana $1,099M
- Cigna $1,345.0M
The Pharmaceutical Industry, the source of the wonder drugs, profits from care.
- Pfizer made $8.257B,
- Johnson & Johnson made $13.334B
- Merck made $861M
- Abbott Laboratories $4.626B
- Eli Lilly made $5.069B
- Bristol-Myers Squibb made $3,102B
- Amgen made $4.627B
- Gilead Sciences made $2,901B
Doctors face about 17,000 malpractice suits annually. They have to try everything reasonable to avoid legal entanglements and accountability; with each award between $100K-$200K or $1.7B/year.
Among others, these factors come together to set the stage for the cost, which then drives you logic on practical payments. But we must keep in mind that, all these factors that drive healthcare cost are based on "maximization of wealth" factors, and not truly a benevolent care for those that need care.
The problem with cut-throat, capitalistic drivers, when talking about healthcare is that capitalism (the maximization of wealth) trumps the positive medicine and benevolent care philosophies in every sector of industry that provides that care. And so, it by default, cannot allow healthcare to be a "right of man."
Healthcare is a business right, a commodity, it is a reimbursement for services and materials rendered. It is a luxury that one can either afford, or not afford. It is rare (very rare) to find healthcare in America that is based on need, and not on (ultimately) cost.
(COMMENT)
Yes, maybe I use a more controversial definition of the impact.
Michael Ruse said:
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
A "right" is something that cannot be denied. Even though it is beautifully written into our Declaration of Independence, I do not believe in "natural" rights. Rights are legal agreements made by people for mutual satisfaction.
No, we don't have a right to health care, but we can agree that a minimal level of health care is in the best interests of the United States and, therefore, ourselves.
Our nation benefits from a healthy, educated and gainfully employed citizenry. It does not benefit from free liposections, free Master's degrees in basket weaving and handouts to those who don't feel like working.
Obviously the disagreement comes from deciding where the cutoff is for taxpayer supplied benefits to those who cannot afford them on their own.
I agree rights need to be decided on by the people, and there is no cosmic right giver, but health care was forced upon us by royalty. all "rights" should be voted on, regardless of who benefits.
Yes health care is a right.
The UN declaration on Human Rights,
Article 25.
The UN declaration on Human Rights,
Article 25.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The un declaration doesnt trump the us bill of rights. Sorry, that is called forgin rule, us constitution goes against that.
Good luck convencing americans that the un overrules the us.
Who gives a **** about the American bill of rights? There is a whole world outside America if you did not know where no one gives a flying **** about your silly bill of rights. The UN declaration of human rights was adopted by the USA so it is part of your laws..duh. These silly people who thinks every thing revolves around America..
I dont give a flying **** about what the un or other countries say, and no it isnt law here, the costitution and bill of rights are top law here.
What do icare of the rest of the world, I live in the us.
Might want to reread the Constitution buddy. All treaties we're signatories to are 'Law of the Land' as per Article 6.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that no treaty take precedence over the Constitution.
The SC ruling means if we signed a treaty that usurped Constitutional authority (such as placing the military under the command of someone other then the president) that the Constitution wins out. The Declaration of Human Rights doesn't counter anything in the Constitution. There is no conflict and so it's binding.
Similar threads
