PDA

View Full Version : Universal Healthcare?


jonathan7
09-18-2008, 06:36 PM
Moved from Decision 08 - Please debate merits of Universal Healthcare in this thread...

Please discuss pros and cons of respective healthcare plans

As an outsider I will offer my commentary...

Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable. But quite simply, even if it costs taxpayers money so what? I happen to think the right to medical treatment is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Indeed the right to medical treatment and as good a health as possible are far more important than freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does little good if one is too ill to get out of bed and exercise it. Why should someone who is ill but could be treated suffer because they don't have the money to do so? Why should external factors effect say the welfare of a child who has not asked to have leukaemia or parents who can't afford treatment? Basically ask yourself this - what is the life of another human being worth to you? Basically if you are not arguing for universal health care, I can only conclude that you have insurance that covers you, or a job that means it doesn't matter. As such does that extra tax of $10, $100, $500 for goods that you don't need for survival (TV, a second car, new gadgets etc) really matter as much as a human life?

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 06:47 PM
As an outsider I will offer my commentary...

Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable. But quite simply, even if it costs taxpayers money so what? I happen to think the right to medical treatment is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Indeed the right to medical treatment and as good a health as possible are far more important than freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does little good if one is too ill to get out of bed and exercise it. Why should someone who is ill but could be treated suffer because they don't have the money to do so? Why should external factors effect say the welfare of a child who has not asked to have leukaemia or parents who can't afford treatment? Basically ask yourself this - what is the life of another human being worth to you? Basically if you are not arguing for universal health care, I can only conclude that you have insurance that covers you, or a job that means it doesn't matter. As such does that extra tax of $10, $100, $500 for goods that you don't need for survival (TV, a second car, new gadgets etc) really matter as much as a human life? I can see merit in your response jonathan7. Do we also have to be responsible for someone who does not work, but they are capable of doing such a task? I agree with your statement; however, I would want a plan to weed out lazy people and illegals immigrants. Getting those illegals into the system is important, so they can be apart of the solution. Lazy people don't deserve free healthcare coverage. Sitting on one's behind at tax-payers expense is unethical.

I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work. I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in. I was under the impression that European nations don't include immigrants, and their prescence is causing extreme pressure on their system. We have a similar problem here as well.

Inyri
09-18-2008, 06:52 PM
Not everyone who is poor is a lazy slob.

And you're wrong; even lazy people have a right to life and health.

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 06:55 PM
Not everyone who is poor is a lazy slob. And you're wrong; even lazy people have a right to life and health. Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share. I refuse to pay for someone who likes to watch tv all day, but they do not want to get a job.

Inyri
09-18-2008, 06:58 PM
So basically you then believe that the lazy deserve to die, since you don't think they deserve basic healthcare?

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 07:01 PM
So basically you then believe that the lazy deserve to die, since you don't think they deserve basic healthcare? Not at all. Lazy people are a burden on the system. I have no problem with them getting a job and working for their share. I didn't say they didn't deserve healthcare -- I said they didn't deserve free healthcare at taxpayer's expense.

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 07:04 PM
Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share. I refuse to pay for someone who likes to watch tv all day, but they do not want to get a job.

You're arguing under the illusion that Universal health care means people who are otherwise incapable of paying for insurance will enjoy the benefit of insurance. This is not true, it simply establishes a standard and picks up after the already established medicaid/medicare platform.

You clearly know nothing about what you are discussing and some education would serve you well. Call me biased if you want, it only further shows your ignorance of a large picture than that of your own home.

What you're basically saying is that I, a working class American who is attending school, is nothing more than a lazy slob. Thanks.

L2 America.

jonathan7
09-18-2008, 07:11 PM
I can see merit in your response jonathan7. Do we also have to be responsible for someone who does not work, but they are capable of doing such a task? I agree with your statement; however, I would want a plan to weed out lazy people and illegals immigrants. Getting those illegals into the system is important, so they can be apart of the solution. Lazy people don't deserve healthcare coverage. Sitting on one's behind at tax-payers expense is unethical.

If someone is lazy they deserve to die? That is a rather massive jump I think - I think someone's work ethic should be entirely separate from if they can receive health care or not. Just so you know, the US economy would collapse without illegal immigrants - Something I love about the UK - that it doesn't matter who you are; if you need hospital treatment you will get it. So much for men being born equal in the states if you don't have universal healthcare... ;)

I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work. I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in. I was under the impression that European nations don't include immigrants, and their prescence is causing extreme pressure on their system.

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.

The system is fine - immigrants have to pay taxes so - they contribute the same as anyone else; Sweden is in many respect the way a country should be governed - have a look into the Swedish system - considering your complete ignorance about the European System, why are you claiming universal health care doesn't work?

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 07:12 PM
I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

Achilles
09-18-2008, 07:14 PM
Regulating universal health care is socialistic in nature, and it will cost American tax payers deeply in the long run. This is rhetoric. Please tell us what "cost American tax payers deeply" means. Please define "long run" also. Thanks.

One of the consequences of living in New England is high taxes. I'll take your word for it. Now please tell me how these two things are related? If you're going to argue for a causal relationship, then you're going to have to provide sources establishing one (i.e. how are taxes in New England dipersed amongst programs? How much more do New Englander's pay? How does this equate to taxable income vs non-taxable income for those that have to cover some portion of health care costs themselves. Et cetera).

We are also in an unstable economic atmosphere that requires careful spending. Adding a newly regulated group to the mix will put more stress on the taxpayer. Okay. How much stress?

People such as myself also don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare. You already do. Medicare. Medicaid. Government healthcare for politicians, military personell (and their dependents), "enemy combatants" in Gitmo.

Taxpayers are now responsible for the reckless buisness practices of mortage lenders and banks. Relevance? This is completely unrelated.

Eventually the system will crush both the wealthy and middle class. How? Why?

I also don't like the idea of being told, "You now have to pay for someone else's medical bills."Addressed above. How do you feel about being told that you also have to pay for someone else's access to emergency services, public libaries, postal services, etc? I think this is the third or forth time this argument has been presented to you and you've yet to address it.

Being responsible for a person's medical bills while they are job capable is foolish. Please explain.

I can understand a loan for those people, but the tax payers need to be paid back. :confused: You appear to be on a tangent now.

Afordable health insurance is a great idea, but it must come from making more options available. Okay. Options like what? What options do you propose that aren't available now? Please be specific.

We must not force people or buisnesses into paying for other people's expenses. Good thing Obama's plan has an opt-out for people that are pleased with their current insurance. Next objection please?

What will eventually happen is that employers will pass the cost of healthcare onto the workers. Eventually? Try "already". This is a non-issue because it already happens. Obama's plan is to reduce the cost to the employee.

Wages will also be cut to accomidate the loss.Source please.

Our country's price of life is allready at extreme standards. People who should be making $16 to $18 dollars an hour are being paid $11 to $12 an hour. Source please.

We allready have a serious problem with getting employers to pay for skilled labor. (Immigration maybe an issue here as well.) Unrelated.

Also: Slippery Slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

Between the ages of 22 and 23, young adults are finished with college. Why should parents cover the cost for young adults? They should have a job of their own by 23. It's called "Graduate School".

(Time to look at McCain's healthcare plans. I will be back with an edit or post.)Sounds good. I always like it when people research their positions after they've taken them :)

I agree with this 100%. More control in the family's hands is important. Allowing families to control where they want their money to be spent is important. Telling people where to spend the money is dictatorship.Does this extend to "regular taxes" as well?

Most of the ideologies McCain makes available are similar to Obama's. They agree almost most of the time. Repeating what I said about Obama's plan but for McCain would be horrible.Don't forget the other industrialized nations that J7 reference above. Would hate to think that maybe they all know something we don't too.

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 07:19 PM
I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

So simply because human nature is going to happen is reason to prevent progress of humanity?
You make less and less sense.

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

Because if you're denied insurance coverage because you're genetically pre-disposed to cancer you will die because you can't afford care by yourself. Under the universal healthcare system you will not be denied coverage simply because of this. This is why people support it. It also standardizes all healthcare insurance plans and fixes up the shoddy medicare/caid plan that you obviously oppose the current structure of. Why not vote for this to happen so that window for abuse is minimized?

Again, your ignorance of this topic points itself out in neon colors.

Also, it appears several people (including myself) have responded. You have yet to show how Universal Healthcare is faulty. Even non-American's have shown how it can benefit our country. To play an emotional card, I'm going to say patriotism is low on your priorities after 1."me", 2."me" and 3."my car"

jonathan7
09-18-2008, 07:24 PM
I'm going to give people more time to respond. I will be back to check up later. Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty. We have people doing that right at this moment.

Which is better the innocent suffering, or the guilty taking advantage - you can only have it one way or the other. You have failed to address any of my points.

Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

Imagine a lazy person has cancer - that can be treated but they can't afford it - they deserve to die because they are lazy.

I will again point out one of my previous - "Something I love about the UK - that it doesn't matter who you are; if you need hospital treatment you will get it. So much for men being born equal in the states if you don't have universal free healthcare..." ;)

Yar-El
09-18-2008, 07:26 PM
Imagine a lazy person has cancer - that can be treated but they can't afford it - they deserve to die because they are lazy. That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.

El Sitherino
09-18-2008, 07:27 PM
That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.

Actually I and nearly everyone in an oncology department can assure you this is not a stretch. In fact this is the all too common problem.

Again, please learn about a topic you want to debate. If you want to debate cancer, I'll be more than happy to shatter your preconceptions.

Bimmerman
09-20-2008, 02:49 AM
I fully support a universal health care system-- it should not be true in this day and age that anyone will die or be forced into financial ruin all because they could not afford health insurance. Judging by your posts, Yar-El, it is extremely obvious you don't know what you're debating.

How is it fair that to keep a "lazy person" from gaming the system, I will be financially ruined or allowed to die if I need to go to the hospital for anything serious? I do not fit into the "lazy couch potato" category, but as a broke college student, I am one medical issue away from ruin. I cannot afford healthcare, and I rely on my family insurance to get me through college and grad school.(yes, I will be in school and broke until I'm well into my late 20s. Surprise!)

How is it fair that to keep from allowing a small percentage of people who will undoubtedly scam the system, hard working, jesus-loving, etc etc, Americans will die or be ruined? Health insurance is stupid expensive, but is extremely critical to have. If you can't afford it, as in if you have the misfortune of needing to eat, you die. Great system.

If you're poor, you die, if you're rich, you live! Yay! Your wealth level must be directly proportional to how hard of a worker you are, and not your education, socio-economic status, intelligence, etc. Hooray, the poor deserve to die because we can't let a few scam the system even though millions will benefit! I'd get banned for speaking my mind on your dogmatic "lazy vs everyone else" or "rich vs poor" or "socialist vs americuh!!!" logic, so I'll let my internet sarcasm do what it can.

I liken the likely tax increase to my view on gas taxes- as long as I benefit, I fully support it. I love driving and am addicted to gasoline, and I will gladly pay 4, 5, 10, 20 dollars per gallon in order to drive my not so efficient race car, especially if the gas taxes go to something useful like funding public transportation. I don't drive everywhere, and I live in a city with plenty of public transportation. I benefit by paying a negligible amount more, or by offsetting the cost by other methods(don't mention tax credits or hybrids, that's stupid talk).

Similarly, I will gladly pay more money in taxes to have a universal health care system where I don't have to worry that my next hospital visit will ruin my future or be my end. I won't have to be so embarrassed at the politicking and sleazy shenanigans that go on in the health care industry. Most important, our country will have a health system to be proud of instead of one at the lower end of first world nations.

As has been posted before, Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweden, and just about all modern countries have universal health care. Unlike our government, theirs actually care about their citizen's plight.

I'm nowhere near an expert on the health care industry here or abroad, but I do know enough to realize the benefits far outweigh the downsides. Do some actual research besides seeing what one candidate says versus the other- no politician has been seen in the wild anywhere near an elusive fact.

This is too rich to pass up on Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html). That is just weird. That is just insane. What is wrong with him? People do know that the human brain is not fully developed until the late teens. Right? I think some people around here talked about this yesterday. He is unethical or insane.

Your response is too good to pass up also- have you read the actual bill he proposed? Or at least the relevant passages?

If you had, you would realize that for the kindergartners that everyone's outraged for, the bill stipulates informing them what inappropriate touching is. How is this not a good thing? Is it better to not tell them when some behavior is considered sexual harassment? By them not knowing this who is being protected? Pedophiles. Bravo.

The bill did not propose telling kindergartners how babies are made or how to put on a condom or how aids is bad(m'kay?), but rather how to recognize what is harassment so that they could report it. Unless the parents are complete fools, prudes, and idiots, they have already done so. However, by requiring it to be taught in schools, everyone can feel better knowing that all kids know what constitutes harassment.

Merged double post - please use the edit post function in future :) - J7

Pavlos
09-20-2008, 08:24 AM
Yar-El - you are utterly wrong about universal health care, Britain (1950-2000), Sweden, Denmark, Norway and many other European Countries show that universal health care is affordable.
Hear, hear! I say we all have a refreshing Beveridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report).

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.
It's one of the issues associated with socialised medicine that a democratically elected government is accountable for something as massive and important as the NHS.

If something doesn't work then people kick up a fuss. The fuss leads to government policy and because government has to be seen to be acting immediately on said fuss, the policy is generally badly thought out and a short-term solution. If they don't act then they lose face, are branded as 'immigrant-favouring lefties' by the Mail and 'right wing, back-door privatising backstabbers' by the Independent, and manage to spectacularly lose the next election, stopping off along the way to nationalise Northern Rock.

Successive governments fiddling with things (policies to remove matrons, then bring them back, and then implement 'super matrons' spring to mind...) leads to a right royal mess that can only be sorted out by an independent rethink and reorganisation of the NHS with long-term returns and goals set in mind: a modern-day Beveridge Report, if you will.

Unfortunately, democracy doesn't do well with long-term goals, it's a very knee-jerking, reactionary thing. Rather like middle England...

Anyway. Personally, if I were American, I'd vote for Barack Obama. Not out of any political idealism but simply because I'd like to see his face when he comes on a state visit to the UK and realises that one of his election slogans (yes we can) is the catch phrase of a BBC children's programme.

"We are the people we have been waiting for": does he get annoyed at himself for making him wait, I wonder?

Yar-El
09-20-2008, 11:32 AM
I have to do more research on this subject. I have been reading both pros and cons to establishing Universal/Nationalised Healthcare. I admit in theory it sounds like a good idea, but I have also read up on the nightmares. I need more intel. Until I learn otherwise, I'm still against the idea. I will be back.

@ Palvos :lol: Yes we can, yes we can! Do they use it to teach kids to spell, read, and go potty?

---Edit added---

I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable. What started out as a Obama plan in other countries has turned into a crisis. Everything from the loss of liberties to limited funding caused by government cutbacks due to deficits. France is suffering from a massive deficit caused by their nationalized healthcare, and it has produced some very horrible results. Regulated forces have caused limitations in funding for each patient, private companies moving to other more free countries, and a reduction in medical sciences. European countries have more issues caused by nationalized healthcare than the United States system. After I'm done reading what I have found, I will post it here for your examination. Nationalized Healcare is a socialistic ideology, which does have several major - major drawbacks. People are telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. People are saying I lack the knowledge. You don't know me. I'm going to show you proof.

Governers in Massachusetts are scrambling for more funding. They missjudged the expense for state-wide healthcare, and they needed a bail out by the federal government. They also missjudged the number of people who needed healthcare. I will be back with more.

--- Added Edit ---

I needed someone who was a professional, unbiased, and has also talked to the government. As I said in a previous section, the National Healcare ideology has some serious drawbacks. I found someone who is in both support and against the idea. Who I ended up finding is a researcher at the CATO Institute named Michael Tanner. You be the judge.

A List of His Work and Research (http://216.185.11.243/search?q=Michael+Tanner&site=cato_all&client=cato&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary)

PDF -- His findings on the effects of National Healthcare. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf)

I also wanted to get an outsider. Professionals have more weight due to their experience, research, and education. I thought having an outsider's perspective would also spark some questions. Mark Valenti also has extensive research that Nationalized Healthcare is a bad idea. We must learn from history and not repeate it. Keep in mind that his information may be biased.

Outsider's Research -- Mark D. Valenti (http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html)

Why do I have resources? Everyone who has challanged me doesn't. You blamed me for not knowing anything, but you didn't supply your own resources. I have more for a later time. I'm waiting for the right questions.

What you do with this information is of your own. We live in a free world.

Achilles
09-20-2008, 02:22 PM
I have to do more research on this subject. I have been reading both pros and cons to establishing Universal/Nationalised Healthcare. I admit in theory it sounds like a good idea, but I have also read up on the nightmares. I need more intel. Until I learn otherwise, I'm still against the idea. I will be back. Please explain to me the wisdom of researching your position after you've taken it (aka "I don't like X and now I'm going to go find out what my reasons are"). Some people might not mind this kind of "thinking", however others will and those people will find it very difficult to take you seriously.

People are telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. People are saying I lack the knowledge. You don't know me. I'm going to show you proof. If you have to go find something in order to show us proof, that means you don't have "the knowledge".

I needed someone who was a professional, unbiased, and has also talked to the government. Michael Tanner is not unbiased (http://www.cato.org/people/tanner.html) (hint: no one associated with a policy-making Washington think tank is unbiased. I hope that helps). If you're still looking for unbiased opinions, you're going to have to start again.

I also wanted to get an outsider. Professionals have more weight due to their experience, research, and education. I thought having an outsider's perspective would also spark some questions. Mark Valenti also has extensive research that Nationalized Healthcare is a bad idea. We must learn from history and not repeate it. Keep in mind that his information may be biased. Mark Valenti is not your resource. The few dozen websites he's linked to are your source. Did you read any of them? Are you offering them up because they reflect your views (again, fallacies and all)? Or did you just find the website, decide that the headlines sounded provocative, and fall in love?

Remember my earlier observations about cherry-picking.

Why do I have resources? Everyone who has challanged me doesn't.Because none of us have made bold claims that require supporting sources (???).

What you do with this information is of your own. We live in a free world.Ok, I will. Thanks!

Astor
09-20-2008, 02:24 PM
I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable.

Rubbish. If the National Health Service in Britain was as bad as people make it sound, I'd be dead.

Last year, i'd found a lump, and I went straight to my local hospital. five days, I was having an operation to remove it. It turned out to be potentially fatal.

Had I been in America, I wouldn't have been able to afford the treatment i'm now recieving, or the operation, or medication.

Maybe I was just lucky, but Nationalised Healthcare saved my life, and I don't have to worry about paying extensive medical bills or worry about paying for my next medical problem.

(I don't know if this has much to do with the topic, but I thought i'd try to show an advantage of Nationalised Health care)

EnderWiggin
09-20-2008, 06:09 PM
I have to read up on the European system. I was under the impression that it doesn't work.
Oh, that's ok, you're just wrong.

I cannot comment on something in which I'm not versed in.
[/Thread] then?

Who said anything about the poor? I know I didn't.

No. Lazy people do not deserve free healthcare. They are capable of working for their share.
So you'd rather people die because they didn't "do their share"? What about their children? Should the children of the lazy also suffer?

Which moron did you hear that off? The UK health system was the best in the world for 40 years 1950-1990 - only serious miss-management by the Government has caused problems since.

Just quoting him so you'll actually read it this time.


Sweden is in many respect the way a country should be governed - have a look into the Swedish system - considering your complete ignorance about the European System, why are you claiming universal health care doesn't work?

And again.

Thinking that no one will take advatage of this system is faulty.
So all of the poor people and those who you'd agree deserve these benefits should suffer because of the chance that someone will take advantage of the system? How odd.


Why are people talking about death? or, dying? Who made that statement?

That's what happen when you can't afford treatment for life-threatening illnesses. It's unfortunate that you couldn't put that together :(


That is a far stretch. Your playing with me now.
No, he's really not.

I could say the same to you, since you seem to be blowing smoke :)


I did some really good research, and I will be displaying it here soon. I have found reliable sources from doctors, educators, and other professionals. All this talk about how Italy, Britain, Germany, Japan, and France having a great nationalized healthcare system is laughable.

It really isn't. I'm going to try to go get a third party opinion for you.

_EW_

SD Nihil
09-21-2008, 09:28 PM
I don't want universal health care. If we have it then that means who else will pay for it. That's right the tax payers (us) will. Taxes are already high. Also, with ourcurrent economy when you have the government having to bail out companies like AIG this in my opinion would only make our troubles worse.

Canada has universal health care. Many Canadians come down to the United States because of surgeries where they cannot wait. In Canada you have to wait because with Universal Health Care you are subject to when the insurance company says you can get the surgery. In America the doctor can say you need the surgery right now if he thinks it's that dire.

In my opinion I believe the doctor should be the one in charge of when you get the care you need. Not some insurance company.

Another bad thing about it is your incentive to improve your level of care is dampened because of the level the government sets the level of care quotient. Meaning the government says you are to provide this level of care. If you work above it you don't get advancement, or get paid more. You just don't get awarded.

Web Rider
09-21-2008, 10:24 PM
In my opinion I believe the doctor should be the one in charge of when you get the care you need. Not some insurance company.

I agree, but at the same time people shouldn't have to live with debilitating conditions because they couldn't afford it.

And if doctors became doctors for the money, they shouldn't have been doctors, doctors should be people who want to help others. This is what pisses me off about doctors who run off the Kenya and help the poor and sick there.

Those are the kind of people I want providing care here, people who are interested in keeping people healthy, not interested in making a quick buck off somebody's suffering.

Jae Onasi
09-22-2008, 09:41 AM
I have met some of my colleagues who obviously stayed in the medical field because they enjoyed the good income. I've even seen a couple of complete crooks but had no definitive proof to turn them in--crooks exist in any field, and medicine is no exception. However, we don't usually get into the field for that reason. If we wanted just to make top money, we could put that same energy and passion into a business degree and make 10 times what a doctor typically makes. I see more people in the field for the prestige and respect than for money, if you have to peg what kinds of things attract us to that level of degree other than the purely altruistic 'helping people'. Most of us are in the field because we have an aptitude and even a gift for it, we enjoy helping others with their medical problems, and many times because some medical professional was influential in our lives in some way. For instance, someone who goes into neurology may do so because a neurologist saved his or her life or a family member's life, or eased a family member or friend's suffering in some substantially meaningful way.

The people who 'run off to Kenya' (or other places with inadequate healthcare) do so because they want to improve health and ease suffering in places that often times don't have adequate facilities, much less well-trained personnel. They see a desperate need far greater than in developed countries, and decide to fill that need.

Bee Hoon
09-22-2008, 10:54 AM
The people who 'run off to Kenya' (or other places with inadequate healthcare) do so because they want to improve health and ease suffering in places that often times don't have adequate facilities, much less well-trained personnel. They see a desperate need far greater than in developed countries, and decide to fill that need.Quoted for emphasis. The 'poor and sick in Kenya' are equally deserving, if not more so due to their dire need.

Yar-El: I am Malaysian, and we have your hated universal healthcare in place. Do I approve? Absolutely. I do not see what being lazy has anything to do with it. Has it ever occurred to you that some people may not be contributing taxes simply because they are out of the tax bracket? There are many poor families in Malaysia, especially in the rural areas and among the orang asli (the natives, or aborigines). Entire families often survive on less than RM1000 a month (which is hardly more than 300USD).

Is it wrong that these people should receive healthcare at the expense of those who can afford it? They are *not* lazy--many of them simply do not have the opportunities and privileges that you enjoy. The orang asli especially are still subsistence farmers. There is a Malay saying about this way of life: "kais pagi makan pagi, kais petang makan petang". It basically refers to a hand-to-mouth existence. We need not mention cancer in this context; they are often malnourished (either from an inadequate diet or parasitic infections or other causes), and thus even an attack of the 'flu can be fatal.

The system is not without its flaws (the crowded government hospitals; perennial shortages of staff especially specialists, many of whom join privately-owned hospitals), but perhaps consider the plight of the poor before you brand them as "lazy" and deny them this basic human right.

My parents like to think that their tax money goes towards healthcare, rather than ending up in the pocket of some corrupt politician.

SD Nihil
09-22-2008, 05:02 PM
I agree, but at the same time people shouldn't have to live with debilitating conditions because they couldn't afford it.

Our system of capitalism isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But in my opinion it's better than universal health care where you have to pay a lot more taxes wise to have universal care for everyone. Yes everyone may be getting some kind of care, but not really what they need. Where as with capitalism type care you have choice.

You research the best physician. You learn what kind of doctor they are. Are they for money or do they really care for the patient. I believe people go into medicine because they have a genuine want to care for others. They always have fear when performing say surgery. That's a life you have in their hands. And if one working on a patient tells you they are not scared for the patient or feel worry in every move they take then they are lying. You want to do everything right. These are good doctors.

Yes there are bad ones. They are more easily identified by their success rate. Let me also add there are some that will not perform a risky surgery on a patient for if the patient dies their stats go down. This is why you need to research your doctor and find out who he or she is person wise. When you talk to them do they seem sincere. Are they negative. Are they overly positive. Are they just blunt. Are they with their attitude showing signs that they are just a business man or do you see compassion in their tone and words.

You can never be sure of everyone. But you learn more about the physician and talk to them. Get to know them as a person.

Other countries like you've mentioned guys don't provide care well. We've given money to countries like Kenya and Africa. Their is corruption over there. Money doesn't get where it needs to. So it's more the government of those countries' fault and less ours. We gave. Those countries just aren't doing right for their people.

We live good lives in the US better than many third world countries. We are a rich nation. Money has gotten to the right places. We are humane. Some countries are not.

So work to afford the doctor you need. Universal health care doesn't give you that option. Everyone gets the same. That's not good enough for someone waiting for a hearth transplant. That's why they come here because they know they'll get the heart quicker rather than waiting for the insurance company to make a move.

Guys Universal Health care may sound good on paper, but it's not when actually implemented. Compare the mortality rate of a capitalism health care system and an universal health care system. And look at who has had less deaths under which system.

I can speak on this type of medical topic well in that my father is a retired Nurse Anesthetist. These are the guys that put you to sleep. The I V's, gas mask, that kind of thing. You need several in the room to deal with how much of this and that medicine they need while under surgery. Theirs another anesthetist watching the EKG and such.

Not to be confused with Anesthesiologist. That is a type of doctor that oversees the work of the nurse anesthetists under him. He's the one who says give this or that to the nurse anesthetists. The Anesthesiologist will write on the paper work saying he administered this medication or that even though it was his underlings who did.

My father retired due to his hearing getting bad. If not for his hearing loss he says he'd continue to work. But when you can't hear as well in the surgery room that can put the patient in more danger. 40yrs he worked.

So this just shows guys like my Dad do care for the patient and cared enough to know when it was time to quit.

Astor
09-22-2008, 05:23 PM
So work to afford the doctor you need. Universal health care doesn't give you that option.

No, but it gives everyone an option, one that many wouldn't have otherwise.

Everyone gets the same.

Id rather everyone get the same as opposed to only the rich being able to afford healthcare.

That's not good enough for someone waiting for a hearth transplant. That's why they come here because they know they'll get the heart quicker rather than waiting for the insurance company to make a move.

So the rich can lead, happy, healthy lives while the poor die or spend a lifetime on dialysis because they can't afford to pay a good doctor?

We are humane.

That's at odds with almost everything else you've said.

Guys Universal Health care may sound good on paper, but it's not when actually implemented.

As i've said, when I needed preventative surgery, I got it.

My grandfather needed heart surgery, he got it.

My uncle needed a new hip, He got it.

See where i'm going? All of that was with this universal healthcare you dislike so much.

El Sitherino
09-22-2008, 05:39 PM
Just so you know, you're usually referred to a doctor because of the type of treatment you need. If they happen to be located in America, there ya go.

EnderWiggin
09-22-2008, 07:10 PM
Also, with ourcurrent economy when you have the government having to bail out companies like AIG this in my opinion would only make our troubles worse.

Nothing to do with the topic.

In my opinion I believe the doctor should be the one in charge of when you get the care you need. Not some insurance company.


Wow. You do realize that this is what's happening in AMERICA, right? If the insurance company tells you you can't get the care, then you don't get the care. In AMERICA.


Yes everyone may be getting some kind of care, but not really what they need.

This is just plain bull****.

You can never be sure of everyone. But you learn more about the physician and talk to them. Get to know them as a person.

Oh, you need a life saving surgery? Hold on, let me shop around for a month to find you one with a good bedside manor.

Other countries like you've mentioned guys don't provide care well. We've given money to countries like Kenya and Africa.
Countries like Africa? Wow. :confused:

Pay attention, friend. The reason that Kenya doesn't provide care well is because it doesn't have a Universal Health Care System. And it's poor.

Throughout all of this, you haven't said anything that actually pertains to the topic. Your words are meandering about and have no factual basis.


We live good lives in the US better than many third world countries. We are a rich nation. Money has gotten to the right places. We are humane. Some countries are not.

NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

Dag nab it, saying that we live lives better than some doesn't mean that we shouldn't work for progress.

So work to afford the doctor you need.
Some people don't have that option.

That's not good enough for someone waiting for a hearth transplant.

Transplants are determined by how many viable hearts are gotten. If no donors die that month, then it's impossible to get you a heart. Plus, America has huge wait times for transplants, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Guys Universal Health care may sound good on paper, but it's not when actually implemented.
Source?
Compare the mortality rate of a capitalism health care system and an universal health care system. And look at who has had less deaths under which system.

Double-source? Because I know that this one is ****.

I can speak on this type of medical topic well in that my father is a retired Nurse Anesthetist.
I can speak about how to fly because my great-uncle was a pilot. Oh wait, that's bull.

These are the guys that put you to sleep. The I V's, gas mask, that kind of thing. You need several in the room to deal with how much of this and that medicine they need while under surgery. Theirs another anesthetist watching the EKG and such.

Not to be confused with Anesthesiologist. That is a type of doctor that oversees the work of the nurse anesthetists under him. He's the one who says give this or that to the nurse anesthetists. The Anesthesiologist will write on the paper work saying he administered this medication or that even though it was his underlings who did.

My father retired due to his hearing getting bad. If not for his hearing loss he says he'd continue to work. But when you can't hear as well in the surgery room that can put the patient in more danger. 40yrs he worked.

Nothing to do with anything.

So this just shows guys like my Dad do care for the patient and cared enough to know when it was time to quit.

All that tells me is that your Dad retired because he couldn't hear as well. It says nothing on his motives, and is really irrelevant as to why universal health care is a "bad system". The doctors in Canada/the UK/Sweden (and etc) still care about their patients.

_EW_

SD Nihil
09-22-2008, 08:59 PM
No, but it gives everyone an option, one that many wouldn't have otherwise.

Again with capitalism you have choice of level of care. Universal you all get the same level of care. Nothing better than the current level. With your condition that might not be adequate.

Yes you have to work for it. Why should I have to pay more taxes for someone else who didn't put forth the effort to work hard. You didn't choose to work hard sorry I'm not going to award your laziness. That may sound cold, but I don't believe in awarding those that choose to work the minimum and expect to get more for little.

If you work hard you should get what you deserve. If you work little you should get little. I think that's fair.

So the rich can lead, happy, healthy lives while the poor die or spend a lifetime on dialysis because they can't afford to pay a good doctor?

That's right it's their fault they are poor. They wouldn't be if they applied themselves. So what it's hard. Heck my Dad started out living in someone's garage. So you can do it if you work at it. So yes those that worked hard get to have more and those that are lazy get little. To some I may seem like a monster. But this is how some conservatives believe. And I'm not ashamed or feel guilty in the least. When I go to sleep I sleep like a log. I just don't care that the poor man is dying in a ditch. I may feel pity or sympathy for his pain, but at the same time I know he could have helped himself not to have had that pain.

That's at odds with almost everything else you've said.

We are. We are the country that has given more aid and money to other countries that any other country has.

My grandfather needed heart surgery, he got it.

My uncle needed a new hip, He got it.

See where I'm going? All of that was with this universal healthcare you dislike so much.

I'm glad you got the care you needed. What I was talking about were those patients who needed emergency surgeries. Ones that couldn't wait like yours.

Nothing to do with the topic.

It is on topic. It's me reinforcing my point of why Universal is bad is because with our current economy and high taxes we can't afford more taxes to pay for such a universal health care system. That's how it ties in.

Wow. You do realize that this is what's happening in AMERICA, right? If the insurance company tells you you can't get the care, then you don't get the care. In AMERICA.

That's right insurance companies also in America hold care back from you. You'd also have that same problem with Universal Health Care with a side of government involvement and higher taxes to pay for the system of Universal Health Care.

This is just plain bull****.

Oh. Please elaborate.

Oh, you need a life saving surgery? Hold on, let me shop around for a month to find you one with a good bedside manor.

Our technology is very good compared to some other countries. Some research doesn't take very long. In the hospital you might get recommended to a good surgeon.

You don't get that in an Universal Health Care System.

EnderWiggin]Pay attention, friend. The reason that Kenya doesn't provide care well is because it doesn't have a Universal Health Care System. And it's poor.

Throughout all of this, you haven't said anything that actually pertains to the topic. Your words are meandering about and have no factual basis.

It's because they're corrupt. When we're giving them the money and they don't choose to fix problems and get the money where it's needed in my opinion that's corruption.

NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!

~snipped~ saying that we live lives better than some doesn't mean that we shouldn't work for progress.

It does have to do with the topic. It means we have more because we strived to work hard and make progress. In an Universal Health Care System your incentive to work harder, make new health care improvements, and do more than the minimum is hampered because you will not make more, get advancement, or get rewarded for doing more than the set by the government standard of care quotient.

Some people don't have that option.

We all in America have choice. Choice to be a bum or a choice to live wealthy. If your stuck in a slum. If your city doesn't have jobs move. Work out of your car if you have to.

If my father started out living in someone's garage to now have over a couple million in investments that right there shows in America you can make it if you try.

All that tells me is that your Dad retired because he couldn't hear as well. It says nothing on his motives, and is really irrelevant as to why universal health care is a "bad system". The doctors in Canada/the UK/Sweden (and etc) still care about their patients.

It shows his motives real well. If he didn't care about the patients and only about profit he would have continued to work despite his hearing loss. He may have bad hearing, but heck with the fact it might cause a problem in the surgery room money would've mattered more.

But my Dad doesn't think that way. He said he quit because his hearing was interfering with the work. He couldn't hear what medication he was being told to give. Each medicine matters. If you give the wrong one you can harm or kill the patient. He said he didn't want to cause harm to a patient.

Transplants are determined by how many viable hearts are gotten. If no donors die that month, then it's impossible to get you a heart. Plus, America has huge-ass wait times for transplants, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

You'd wait longer in UHC System.

Source?

Double-source? Because I know that this one is ****.

Look it up yourself if you want. Google capitalism health care system. Google Universal Health Care System. This isn't one of those things you need to give a source for. It's not like something just heard on the news that's new. The definitions, explanations, and the evidence of it's use and statistics are on the internet. You should look it up yourself. They're facts out there waiting for you to find them.

Again this is just simple. It's like someone saying give me a source when I explain what democracy is and they don't believe that's what it is. Well look it up yourself. It's not hard to find.

Like with capitalism Health Care you do your own work, your own research, and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. This is not Universal Health Care System where another person is paying for your level of care. Meaning I'm not going to do your research for you.

I can speak about how to fly because my great-uncle was a pilot. Oh wait, that's bull.

This isn't a topic about flying is it. It's a medical topic. If it was about flying you could speak with a little more experience. I can speak about this better because I have yes what my father did, learned from stuff he'd talk about. Even this. And I can ask him stuff.

It almost sounds like you were calling what my father did bull. You said your great uncle flew or something and then said no wait that's bull. Anyway the quote is right there. Trust me my father did what he did for 40 years. That's not bull. It's fact.

jrrtoken
09-22-2008, 09:26 PM
Again with capitalism you have choice of level of care. Universal you all get the same level of care. Nothing better than the current level. With your condition that might not be adequate.Yes, but you get it without having to get your insurance company to sign forms, and other nasty bureaucratic stuff that allows you to get treatment. Therfore, the insurance company is really the one who decides on whether you live or die in a critical operation; When I went to the ER when I got my lip badly cut up in a skiing accident, the first thing they asked me at the sign in desk was: "Proof of insurance?" In a nation with Universal Health Care, that wouldn't happen, as the nation will pay for it right there and then, and the money will only come out of your taxes. Or something like that.

That's right it's their fault they are poor. They wouldn't be if they applied themselves. So what it's hard. Heck my Dad started out living in someone's garage. So you can do it if you work at it. So yes those that worked hard get to have more and those that are lazy get little. To some I may seem like a monster. But this is how some conservatives believe. And I'm not ashamed or feel guilty in the least. When I go to sleep I sleep like a log. I just don't care that the poor man is dying in a ditch. I may feel pity or sympathy for his pain, but at the same time I know he could have helped himself not to have had that pain.So you're saying that the reason that people are poor is that they're always lazy? I know from personal experience that this is a lie. If people are living in poverty, a number of factors put them there, they could have been born into it, but it's definitely NOT laziness.

We are. We are the country that has given more aid and money to other countries that any other country has.:rofl: I can't tell you how so wrong you are. Do some research on America and you'll find out we're really a horrible nation, and that we've done the exact opposite of what you believe throughout history.

Other unimportant ramblings that have already been stated...The point is clear: Would you rather have a COMPANY decide if you have enough money to get healthcare or would you rather have the government give it to you automatically whenever you needed it?

Jae Onasi
09-22-2008, 09:35 PM
That's why they come here because they know they'll get the heart quicker rather than waiting for the insurance company to make a move.Yes, insurance companies here have a vested interest in denying transplants--the high costs for that (as opposed to the patient dying) means their shareholders lose revenue. Insurance companies in the US regularly deny medical treatments they don't want to pay for. At least with a government run system you have some more transparency, and you can vote out the people who don't run it right. People in the US have very little ability to fight insurance company corruption, even with the state insurance commissions.

Compare the mortality rate of a capitalism health care system and an universal health care system. And look at who has had less deaths under which system.I don't know about mortality rates overall because I haven't researched that, but I do know maternal and infant mortality rates are lower in a number of countries with universal healthcare than they are in the US. That's because all pregnant women get care in those countries, not merely those who can afford it.

As i've said, when I needed preventative surgery, I got it.
My grandfather needed heart surgery, he got it.
My uncle needed a new hip, He got it.

Just out of curiosity, how long did you all have to wait for the surgery? While I'm generally in favor of universal health care, it's not without its flaws, and long waits can be one of those flaws. When I needed gall bladder surgery, it got done within 3 weeks of the visit to the surgeon. My friend in Canada had to wait 7 months for an opening, and she was quite sick the entire time. I consider that long of a wait to be both medically inappropriate and ethically questionable.

let me shop around for a month to find you one with a good bedside manor.
Is 'bedside manor' the new name for a bed-and-breakfast? ;P

mimartin
09-22-2008, 09:45 PM
I really love how people assume we will pay more in taxes for Universal Health Care than we are paying now for private insurance. Everybody does understand that we are paying for the uninsured now. It is not just those that can’t afford insurance that are the problem, it is also those that would rather spend their hard earned money elsewhere and leave the responsibility with the rest of us.

I sell health insurance and this would hurt my income, but I would rather have everyone covered than to make a profit.


I also find it funny that people defend our current health care system as been superior when the United States of American is ranked 37 in by the World Health Organization’s World Health Report. France, The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and 33 other countries rank higher than the U.S. I just don’t understand why if we have such a wonderful system do we rank behind Costa Rica and just in front of Slovenia and Cuba.

EnderWiggin
09-22-2008, 09:50 PM
It is on topic. It's me reinforcing my point of why Universal is bad is because with our current economy and high taxes we can't afford more taxes to pay for such a universal health care system. That's how it ties in.


I think you're muddying the waters.


It's because they're corrupt. When we're giving them the money and they don't choose to fix problems and get the money where it's needed in my opinion that's corruption.


The question is, what does corruption in Kenya have to do with socialized medicine in the USA?


Look it up yourself if you want. Google capitalism health care system. Google Universal Health Care System. This isn't one of those things you need to give a source for. It's not like something just heard on the news that's new. The definitions, explanations, and the evidence of it's use and statistics are on the internet. You should look it up yourself. They're facts out there waiting for you to find them.

Again this is just simple. It's like someone saying give me a source when I explain what democracy is and they don't believe that's what it is. Well look it up yourself. It's not hard to find.

Like with capitalism Health Care you do your own work, your own research, and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. This is not Universal Health Care System where another person is paying for your level of care. Meaning I'm not going to do your research for you.

When someone asks you to cite your sources in a debate, you do so, in the interest of furthering the conversation.

Here's one that I just found:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/_m...kofactoids.pdf

But that's besides the point. I've actually done a term paper on this topic, so I've done all the research, including census data reports and other boring government documents. I'm just calling you on claims that I know to be false.




This isn't a topic about flying is it. It's a medical topic. If it was about flying you could speak with a little more experience. I can speak about this better because I have yes what my father did, learned from stuff he'd talk about. Even this. And I can ask him stuff.


It was an analogy.

_EW_

SD Nihil
09-22-2008, 10:07 PM
So you're saying that the reason that people are poor is that they're always lazy? I know from personal experience that this is a lie. If people are living in poverty, a number of factors put them there, they could have been born into it, but it's definitely NOT laziness.

I assume you mean in another country where you don't have the same capitalistic freedoms we have in America. If your living in a bad place in America then move to where you can get a job.

I can't tell you how so wrong you are. Do some research on America and you'll find out we're really a horrible nation, and that we've done the exact opposite of what you believe throughout history.

Proof other than maybe a few instances of bad care here or there. If we are such a horrible nation why are you still living here. Maybe because we are better than many other countries.

Yes, but you get it without having to get your insurance company to sign forms, and other nasty bureaucratic stuff that allows you to get treatment. Therefore, the insurance company is really the one who decides on whether you live or die in a critical operation; When I went to the ER when I got my lip badly cut up in a skiing accident, the first thing they asked me at the sign in desk was: "Proof of insurance?" In a nation with Universal Health Care, that wouldn't happen, as the nation will pay for it right there and then, and the money will only come out of your taxes. Or something like that.

Again you'd have to deal with the insurance company in a UHC system too. With a CHC system you can choose your insurance company that might have better options and is quicker than the other.

The point is clear: Would you rather have a COMPANY decide if you have enough money to get healthcare or would you rather have the government give it to you automatically whenever you needed it?

UHC that might not be adequate for your condition. Whereas CHC system you can work to afford the care that is adequate to your needs.

Heart surgery can wait now?

Go figure.

It depends on the condition and prognosis.

And what does corruption in Kenya have to do with Socialized Medicine?

I was simply answering a quote.

When someone asks you to cite your sources in a debate, you do so, in the interest of furthering the conversation.

Here's one that I just found:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/_m...kofactoids.pdf

But that's besides the point. I've actually done a term paper on this topic, so I've done all the research, including census data reports and other boring government documents. I'm just calling you on claims that I know to be false.



Your choosing to continue to debate, quote, and egnoledge me.Moore is just a guy commenting on what he thinks. Like you.

El Sitherino
09-22-2008, 10:17 PM
I think you're missing the fundamental reasons a Universal Healthcare program will be beneficial and affordable.

Inyri
09-22-2008, 10:32 PM
Stow away on a boxcar if you don't have enough money to travel because you can't get a job where you currently live!

Man, did that sound as stupid to you as it did to me? :)

Web Rider
09-22-2008, 11:28 PM
Our system of capitalism isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But in my opinion it's better than universal health care where you have to pay a lot more taxes wise to have universal care for everyone. Yes everyone may be getting some kind of care, but not really what they need. Where as with capitalism type care you have choice.
It's not like with universal care we're all going to start getting treated for broken legs and impotency when we clearly don't have those problems.

You research the best physician.
This is not always an option. There are not a half a dozen physicians within emergency distance of the average person. Sometimes there isn't even 1.

You learn what kind of doctor they are. Are they for money or do they really care for the patient.
When all you can afford is $1000 dollars or less, you'll go to the doctor who charges the least, not the one who provides the best care.

Yes there are bad ones. They are more easily identified by their success rate. Let me also add there are some that will not perform a risky surgery on a patient for if the patient dies their stats go down.
Which means good and bad doctors can't be identified by their success rate as a doctor who avoids risky things will have a higher rate than one who does not but may be a better doctor.

This is why you need to research your doctor and find out who he or she is person wise. When you talk to them do they seem sincere. Are they negative. Are they overly positive. Are they just blunt. Are they with their attitude showing signs that they are just a business man or do you see compassion in their tone and words.
referring back to the point where I stated that choosing your doctor is not always an option, especially for much of poor and rural America.

So work to afford the doctor you need. Universal health care doesn't give you that option. Everyone gets the same. That's not good enough for someone waiting for a hearth transplant. That's why they come here because they know they'll get the heart quicker rather than waiting for the insurance company to make a move.
You don't get it do you? If I break my leg because I don't have a college education and I have to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week just to make ends meat, I can't "keep working" after that. I need my leg fixed NOW. There is no work, no money until that happens.

Look I pay for my own health coverage, and I STILL have to wait for an insurance company to tell me I can get my whatever.

Guys Universal Health care may sound good on paper, but it's not when actually implemented. Compare the mortality rate of a capitalism health care system and an universal health care system. And look at who has had less deaths under which system.
The answer would be: capitalist, also, as other say, proof?

And don't bring poor defunct nations into the picture here, keep the comparisons kosher by sticking to other western nations.

I can speak on this type of medical topic well in that my father is a retired Nurse Anesthetist.
My Aunt is a doctor, my mother is a therapist, my uncle works for a pharmaceutical corporation researching different kinds of drugs. Appeal to authority please.

So this just shows guys like my Dad do care for the patient and cared enough to know when it was time to quit.
that's nice but I don't really see the point of the story. Some medical practitioners care? yeah I know. Some don't. tis life.

You do realize that national healthcare only means there is a government run system that provides care for everyone, and then anyone who wants to start a private medical practice can do so right? Universal healthcare does not strip the right to free enterprise.

Astor
09-23-2008, 02:22 AM
If you work little you should get little. I think that's fair.

That's right it's their fault they are poor. They wouldn't be if they applied themselves. So what it's hard.

Some people (even in American) can work all their lives and never earn enough to pay for medicine for their spouse or children - is that fair?

Ones that couldn't wait like yours.

Actually mine couldn't wait.

Just out of curiosity, how long did you all have to wait for the surgery?

Well, my surgery was to remove a cancer, so that was rushed in as soon as they could do it, only a few days after i'd seen a doctor (it wasn't too far along to be too urgent, but still important).

My Grandfather had had a heart attack, and he recieved a bypass a few days afterwards.

My Uncle, though, he got ran over by a dump-truck, and he had to wait about a month before they could do it, because of all the other damage he'd recieved.

While I'm generally in favor of universal health care, it's not without its flaws, and long waits can be one of those flaws.

Oh, it can have it's flaws, but mostly, both me and my family's experience of Universal healthcare has overwhelmingly positive - up until I needed surgery last year, i'd been unsure about UHC systems, but it changed my mind becuse I saw how quick it can work.

My friend in Canada had to wait 7 months for an opening, and she was quite sick the entire time. I consider that long of a wait to be both medically inappropriate and ethically questionable.

Although I don't know the Canadian Healthcare system, that still seems like an extreme - maybe it's a one-off? I don't know anyone who's ever had to wait as long for a procedure, but I am aware it can happen.

Did your friend not recieve any support from consultants/surgeons during this time?

EDIT:

Our technology is very good compared to some other countries. Some research doesn't take very long. In the hospital you might get recommended to a good surgeon. You don't get that in an Universal Health Care System.

Excuse me? I needed surgery, and I was cared for by both a Urologist, and an Oncologist. I was assigned a Specialist Nurse to help me understand what I was going through, and I recieved care and assistance when I needed it.

It's thanks to those doctors and specialists that i'm alive, so I i'd say they were pretty damn good doctors.

Bee Hoon
09-23-2008, 03:52 AM
I can speak on this type of medical topic well in that my father is a retired Nurse Anesthetist. These are the guys that put you to sleep. The I V's, gas mask, that kind of thing. You need several in the room to deal with how much of this and that medicine they need while under surgery. Theirs another anesthetist watching the EKG and such.Your father may have worked in the medical field, but I hardly expect diffusion of knowledge to occur.

Yes you have to work for it. Why should I have to pay more taxes for someone else who didn't put forth the effort to work hard. You didn't choose to work hard sorry I'm not going to award your laziness. That may sound cold, but I don't believe in awarding those that choose to work the minimum and expect to get more for little.That's right it's their fault they are poor. They wouldn't be if they applied themselves. So what it's hard. Heck my Dad started out living in someone's garage. So you can do it if you work at it. So yes those that worked hard get to have more and those that are lazy get little. To some I may seem like a monster. But this is how some conservatives believe. And I'm not ashamed or feel guilty in the least. When I go to sleep I sleep like a log. I just don't care that the poor man is dying in a ditch. I may feel pity or sympathy for his pain, but at the same time I know he could have helped himself not to have had that pain.Your definition of "humane" is inaccurate. Please revise your self-perception.

Please see my post regarding poverty and subsistence farmers. Perhaps you will continue harping on the USA situation, but has it ever occurred to you that others are stuck in similar cycles of poverty? It's good that your father has improved his financial standings, but at least your grandfather was skilled labour (presuming that you were referring to your paternal grandfather), and would earn much more than a janitor, a clerk, etc.

Again with capitalism you have choice of level of care. Universal you all get the same level of care. Nothing better than the current level. With your condition that might not be adequate.
Our technology is very good compared to some other countries. Some research doesn't take very long. In the hospital you might get recommended to a good surgeon. You don't get that in an Universal Health Care System.Let's have a little lesson on community medicine. Primary care is where the patient makes first contact with the physician. Where further care is needed, the patients are referred to the appropriate hospitals or to specific specialists. And yes, I have seen this firsthand.

It does have to do with the topic. It means we have more because we strived to work hard and make progress. In an Universal Health Care System your incentive to work harder, make new health care improvements, and do more than the minimum is hampered because you will not make more, get advancement, or get rewarded for doing more than the set by the government standard of care quotient.
A good medical practitioner will *always* want to improve.

It shows his motives real well. If he didn't care about the patients and only about profit he would have continued to work despite his hearing loss. He may have bad hearing, but heck with the fact it might cause a problem in the surgery room money would've mattered more.If he could continue to work (regardless of motivation), it implies a serious problem with the hospital if they are willing allow a situation which may endanger patients.

Your choosing to continue to debate, quote, and egnoledge me.Moore is just a guy commenting on what he thinks. Like you.It amuses me that you do not seem to acknowledge that you are also merely airing your opinions.

You'd wait longer in UHC System.Proof?

Other countries like you've mentioned guys don't provide care well.According to UNICEF, as of 2006, USA and Malaysia have the same neonatal mortality rate--one of the standards of measuring healthcare. It may be that rather than reflecting well on my country, it reflects badly on yours; as Jae mentioned, expectant mothers who cannot afford it are deprived of antenatal care. In Malaysia (which has universal healthcare under the Ministry of Health), all expectant mothers are given free antenatal and postnatal care, regardless of socioeconomic background, race or religion.

SD Nihil
09-23-2008, 12:55 PM
I think you're missing the fundamental reasons a Universal Healthcare program will be beneficial and affordable.

I believe I've explained things well.

jmac7142's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 5,973
Blog Entries: 12
Send a message via AIM to jmac7142 Send a message via Skype™ to jmac7142

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
I assume you mean in another country where you don't have the same capitalistic freedoms we have in America. If your living in a bad place in America then move to where you can get a job.
Yeah you ****ing scrubs just move someplace else and get a job

That's right. I do not believe in hand outs. I believe in pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

It's not like with universal care we're all going to start getting treated for broken legs and impotency when we clearly don't have those problems.

Less options with UHC.

This is not always an option. There are not a half a dozen physicians within emergency distance of the average person. Sometimes there isn't even 1.

Less likely to have that option on UHC. In both PHC and UHC there might not be a good doc for your condition. But in PHC if there is money to be made there will be someone working on a treatment.

With UHC there is less incentive to do that. No reward. Unless the country's UHC government designates a doctor to work on this condition. Again the care you get in America isn't hindered by a level of care level set by a UHC system.

When all you can afford is $1000 dollars or less, you'll go to the doctor who charges the least, not the one who provides the best care.

That's right. You try to find the best doc that is good for your budget and good for you medically. UHC you can't choose level of care.

Which means good and bad doctors can't be identified by their success rate as a doctor who avoids risky things will have a higher rate than one who does not but may be a better doctor.

That's why if it's a risky surgery and the doc refuses to do it even though you are paying them then find another.

referring back to the point where I stated that choosing your doctor is not always an option, especially for much of poor and rural America.

Then take another job, more hours, that kind of thing. If I die because I don't have the money due to not working hard enough to afford it then it's my fault and I deserve the consequences for my laziness.

You don't get it do you? If I break my leg because I don't have a college education and I have to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week just to make ends meat, I can't "keep working" after that. I need my leg fixed NOW. There is no work, no money until that happens.

Life is tough. It shouldn't be easy. Struggle makes the end result more worth while. There are always jobs, opportunities, chances for advancement.

I'm not giving the dying beggar who's spitting up blood a dime if he didn't try by moving, working multiple jobs, and busting his hump.

If your expenses are higher than your wages maybe that is something you should take up with the government and your elected officials. Wasteful spending could very well be the cause of why that money isn't in your pocket to pay for your care.

My Aunt is a doctor, my mother is a therapist, my uncle works for a pharmaceutical corporation researching different kinds of drugs. Appeal to authority please.

Ask your aunt if she wants just a set pay and not the ability to grow in pay like with our PHC system.

Yes, of course. We are, after all, "The Great Satan."

well, at least there's "great" in front of "Satan". plus I hear Hell has a universal healthcare program. it's really simple, everyone gets the same care...that is, none.

How does this great Satan stuff have anything to do with UHC. I believe the calling the US great Satan is what the terrorists call us because we are so immoral. I have to say I really don't care what anyone thinks about anything about me or us.



Some people (even in American) can work all their lives and never earn enough to pay for medicine for their spouse or children - is that fair?

Tough. How do I know they tried everything.How do I know if they worked their brains out or not. The majority of America isn't the option you gave.

Actually mine couldn't wait.

Totally unacceptable flame, calling someone a liar over a subject as sensitive as cancer is not allowed. Please indicate where people said something similar to you. Don't do this again; else an infraction will be issued. you have been warned! - j7

What country are you from?

Your father may have worked in the medical field, but I hardly expect diffusion of knowledge to occur.

Diffusion of knowledge? What do you mean>

Your definition of "humane" is inaccurate. Please revise your self-perception.

Please see my post regarding poverty and subsistence farmers. Perhaps you will continue harping on the USA situation, but has it ever occurred to you that others are stuck in similar cycles of poverty? It's good that your father has improved his financial standings, but at least your grandfather was skilled labor (presuming that you were referring to your paternal grandfather), and would earn much more than a janitor, a clerk, etc.

I believe I have used the right term for humane. Your opinion against mine. Definitions can be interoperated any way someone wishes. Also your post. Your not an authority on poverty. Your the level of blogger with that experience. Like me.

Let's have a little lesson on community medicine. Primary care is where the patient makes first contact with the physician. Where further care is needed, the patients are referred to the appropriate hospitals or to specific specialists. And yes, I have seen this firsthand.

We are humane. When the bum who can't pay for his gun shot comes in we take care of him. Even though he has no insurance to pay for the work. We the tax payer end of paying for the work done to him.

A good medical practitioner will *always* want to improve.

I doubt after 20 or 30 years of work without a pay raise or advancement you'll still be providing above the UHC set standard of care.

If he could continue to work (regardless of motivation), it implies a serious problem with the hospital if they are willing allow a situation which may endanger patients

And I said he didn't do that. I said he quit due to his hearing on his own. He didn't choose to continue to work.

It amuses me that you do not seem to acknowledge that you are also merely airing your opinions.

Which is what we all are doing here. You included.

According to UNICEF, as of 2006, USA and Malaysia have the same neonatal mortality rate--one of the standards of measuring healthcare. It may be that rather than reflecting well on my country, it reflects badly on yours; as Jae mentioned, expectant mothers who cannot afford it are deprived of antenatal care. In Malaysia (which has universal healthcare under the Ministry of Health), all expectant mothers are given free antenatal and postnatal care, regardless of socioeconomic background, race or religion.

A comparison to one country which happened to be the same mortality rate. Doesn't seem like UHC has a better mortality rate or less than PHC system.

Astor
09-23-2008, 01:10 PM
Tough. How do I know they tried everything.How do I know if they worked their brains out or not. The majority of America isn't the option you gave.

I didn't see you giving that option either, unless you speak for America?

No one seems to believe what I said about my father. They called it bull.

Nobody said that they didn't believe you. They said that simply being related to a medical professional does not make you an expert on medical matters.

What country are you from?

The United Kingdom, not that it has anything to do with the topic.

jonathan7
09-23-2008, 01:31 PM
Please consider very carefully any posts from this point on, I find some "questions/points" very bad form, and furthermore some posts are offensive, consider this thread under a very short leash, some previous posts are under review, and if you are unsure about a post, please send it to a mod to review to check it is ok to post to avoid getting in trouble. Thanks - j7

Bee Hoon
09-23-2008, 01:34 PM
For the record, I am not Qliveur:p

Less options with UHC.Proof?

I'm not giving the dying beggar who's spitting up blood a dime if he didn't try by moving, working multiple jobs, and busting his hump.What a conundrum! You cannot move without money, employers will not hire you unless they have no other choice, and especially not if you are ill.

Diffusion of knowledge? What do you mean> What your father knows is not what you know.

I believe I have used the right term for humane. Your opinion against mine. Definitions can be interoperated any way someone wishes. Also your post. Your not an authority on poverty. Your the level of blogger with that experience. Like me.humane ( according to the Free Online Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humane))
Adjective
1. showing kindness and sympathy
2. inflicting as little pain as possible: a humane method of killing minke whales
3. considered to have a civilizing effect on people: the humane tradition of a literary education [variant of human]

Please note meanings 1 and 2. Not much room for misinterpretation there, imho. Definitions are precisely that--to define a word and to leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. If you look back at what you have posted, especially your evident lack of sympathy to those suffering (because you judge them deserving of every iota of pain and misery), you should realise that my request for you to stop abusing the word is really quite reasonable.

I may not be an authority on poverty, but I have witnessed it, whereas you give no indication that you have. Or perhaps you are simply not interested in *why* poverty exists and would prefer to simply live with the presumption that all poor people are lazy. I also do not live with the delusion that my life would have turned out the way it has even if I was born to a poor family.

I do not see what being a blogger has to do with the topic.

We are humane. When the bum who can't pay for his gun shot comes in we take care of him. Even though he has no insurance to pay for the work. We the tax payer end of paying for the work done to him.This has no relevance to the point which it was supposed to address. Even so, while you are on this tangent, I would like solid proof.

I doubt after 20 or 30 years of work without a pay raise or advancement you'll still be providing above the UHC set standard of care.As doctors accumulate experience and expertise, their pays are adjusted accordingly. Even so, I hope that the doctor would want to improve, whether to better serve the patients or as a matter of professional pride.

And I said he didn't do that. I said he quit due to his hearing on his own. He didn't choose to continue to work.That is all well and good, but again, it does not address my point.

Which is what we all are doing here. You included.I acknowledge that fact.

A comparison to one country which happened to be the same mortality rate. Doesn't seem like UHC has a better mortality rate or less than PHC system.All along, you have been arguing that universal healthcare provides inferior care to patients. So what is your stand now? Is the same level of healthcare restricted to those who can afford it a better system than one where an equivalent level of care is offered to all?

Edit: SD Nihil, you might find this (http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/900/Factors-Affecting-Poverty-Welfare-Use-HAVING-JOB-DOES-GUARANTEE-ESCAPE-FROM-POVERTY.html) and this (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2007/10/CY0710059I.htm) interesting.

SW01
09-23-2008, 02:06 PM
I fully support our National Health Service, this 'Universal Health Care system'. To me, it has always been a source of fascination that one of the wealthiest governments on the planet made their people pay for basic healthcare.

Now, from experience...

A member of my family is seriously disabled. He requires a long list of medicines, along with visits from a nurse and, occassionally, emergency admittance to a hospital, not to mention equipment to administer medicines, and meetings with consultants. Now, as a UK resident this all comes to us free. NHS costs are (if I understand correctly) part of our national insurance contribution from taxes.

If I was a part of a 'capitalist' healthcare system, I believe that this kind of extensive healthcare would be well out of range, due to financial restrictions. Of course, correct me if I am wrong, bearing in mind that I am not from a particularly wealthy family.

The universal healthcare systems may not necessarily provide the absolute pinnacle of available medical care, but at least we don't need to resort to 'back-street' physicians, or worse go without. The physicians that we see are approved by a system controlled by the government - which guarantees a certain level of ability. The private care system is still there in Britain and France (I can't attest to the others) for those who really want it, but we all have the access we need to care at all times.

SD Nihil
09-23-2008, 05:20 PM
I didn't see you giving that option either, unless you speak for America?

I was speaking of America. If you are in a different country then that country if it has UHC in my opinion you don't have many options.

What I've been saying is with CHC the majority get good care as long as the work hard. Yes in minor cases I believe people sometimes don't get what they need. In UHC everyone is subject to a set standard of care that cannot be set higher. Those that happen to provide care higher than the standard in my opinion probably doesn't happen very much. Make no mistake if it does I'm glad. My point is CHC is not hindered by a set standard of care that does not allow for advancement or increased income. UHC yes everyone gets some level of care. But all have the disadvantage of not having the best care money can buy. Or have some of the best docs I believe are in the US.

In small instances here and there yes I'm happy those of you under UHC have received care quickly. Understand the majority in CHC Believe have gotten it quicker more times than not by my opinion and by what I've seen.

You've seen instances where care was quick. So have I. In the end it is our own opinion and how we interoperate what we see and our encounters. These are my views of CHC and my view of UHC. And Respect your views against CHC and support for UHC.

But these are my views which I'm sticking to. You've proven to un waiver in yours.

Nobody said that they didn't believe you. They said that simply being related to a medical professional does not make you an expert on medical matters.

Your correct. I was simply talking about those that did. Their posts have been removed. I appreciate that.

The United Kingdom, not that it has anything to do with the topic.

It does in that it lets me know what kind of health care system you are speaking from. Thank you for your answer. Compared to us your taxes are lumped together according to some British I've talked to on a recent cruise.

Which supports what I've been saying. To pay for a government run system like UHC the people have to pay high taxes for it. That's my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil
Less options with UHC.
Proof?

Guys it's right there to look up online. But okay here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=less+options+with+universal+health+care&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Here's some about mortality rate. Make your own opinions. I have: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mortality+rate+on+Universal+Health+Care+versus+P rivate+Health+Care&spell=1

busting his hump.
What a conundrum! You cannot move without money, employers will not hire you unless they have no other choice, and especially not if you are ill.

If your car is out of gas hike, ride a bike, and when you go for an interview show your willing to work hard. Let them know your motivated. Appeal to them with your plight. They might show sympathy on you and your situation.

Attitude really does count as well

What your father knows is not what you know.

I do know what he knows when I talk to him. I learned his medical knowledge when he'd talk about it. I learned of his experiences. And I know he's a caring father. I know this because his brother was a diabetic who had a brother up in Pennsylvania didn't help him to drive him or help him with anything. Don dad's brother is the one with diabetes. Tom was the brother that did nothing for him.

I do know he's compassionate. He helped Don move where I live states away. He got Don care. Paid for surgeries, Don had a hard time doing much so my father even took care of cleaning him. He got the man a nurse. Got Don in an independent living place. A fulfilling life Don spoke he had. Friends, he loved the dollar store, he was funny with jokes. And we enjoyed him while he was alive.

Without my father's compassion Don would've died due to his do nothing brother Tom not taking care of Don. Don lived 9 years down where I live because I know my father and that he cares.

Don had to go on dialysis. My father drove him there and back home. He took care of Don's shots. With Don's mental state sometimes Don wasn't himself.

My father did all this without a thank you or money. He cared for his brother. He cares for his patients when he worked. He cares for what he did.

So you don't know my father. I do.

This is on topic because it shows those in the private health care system are compassionate and I do know my father and what he knows.

humane ( according to the Free Online Dictionary)
Adjective
1. showing kindness and sympathy
2. inflicting as little pain as possible: a humane method of killing minke whales
3. considered to have a civilizing effect on people: the humane tradition of a literary education [variant of human]

Please note meanings 1 and 2. Not much room for misinterpretation there, imho. Definitions are precisely that--to define a word and to leave as little room for ambiguity as possible. If you look back at what you have posted, especially your evident lack of sympathy to those suffering (because you judge them deserving of every iota of pain and misery), you should realize that my request for you to stop abusing the word is really quite reasonable.

I may not be an authority on poverty, but I have witnessed it, whereas you give no indication that you have. Or perhaps you are simply not interested in *why* poverty exists and would prefer to simply live with the presumption that all poor people are lazy. I also do not live with the delusion that my life would have turned out the way it has even if I was born to a poor family.

I do not see what being a blogger has to do with the topic.

Those in the medical field take the Hippocratic oath which is to do no harm. We show kindness and sympathy for those good people who worked and bad things happened to them. We don't for those that didn't try.

literacy. Yes we have that too. Though I'm not sure how that has to do with UHC. We allow all citizens to have access to being literate. We are humane. Our hospitals are clean.

I do not see what being a blogger has to do with the topic.

Those that do not help themselves I have no sympathy for. That's my right to have that opinion.

As doctors accumulate experience and expertise, their pays are adjusted accordingly. Even so, I hope that the doctor would want to improve, whether to better serve the patients or as a matter

Which system of health are are you saying they get higher wages on experience? If you mean CHC then yes. For UHC not for doing a better surgery I believe.

That is all well and good, but again, it does not address my point.

Because someone said that he continued to work despite his hearing issue. I said he didn't and why he quit.

The post may have been deleted now. I don't feel like reading every previous post to find it. It's not relevant to the topic anyway. This and your comments on it anyway in my opinion.
None of your posts to date in this thread have been deleted. --Jae

All along, you have been arguing that universal healthcare provides inferior care to patients. So what is your stand now? Is the same level of healthcare restricted to those who can afford it a better system than one where an equivalent level of care is offered to all?

Edit: SD Nihil, you might find this and this interesting.

No because it was one instance that only told about a country that matched CHC's mortality level. Not one that was better. Even if there was. The majority of countries that have CHC and those that have UHC II believe CHC have overall better results for the majority.

I really wish more conservatives would post on this topic. I feel very alone much of the times while posting on this forum. I would appreciate their findings and incite. I've heard the liberal and world incite heavily.

Astor
09-23-2008, 05:40 PM
In UHC everyone is subject to a set standard of care that cannot be set higher.

Yes, it can be set higher. In fact, with our system, standard of care is determined on a case by case basis.

UHC yes everyone gets some level of care. But all have the disadvantage of not having the best care money can buy.

The best care I recieve is that which makes me healthy - I recieve this without having to pay large amounts of money.

Or have some of the best docs I believe are in the US.

The 'best' doctors are those who will care for a patient without thinking of fees, or other such nonsense.

Guys it's right there to look up online. But okay here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=less+options+with+universal+health+care&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Here's some about mortality rate. Make your own opinions. I have: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mortality+rate+on+Universal+Health+Care+versus+P rivate+Health+Care&spell=1

Posting a list of links on Google is not providing a source, nor is it proving your point. You can't simply say 'here's the evidence, if you can find it'. If you want us to see proof, provide a direct link.

Those in the medical field take the Hippocratic oath which is to do no harm. We show kindness and sympathy for those good people who worked and bad things happened to them. We don't for those that didn't try.

A Doctor's first, and only duty, is to care for the sick, no matter what their circumstances are, or who they are.

A doctor shouldn't care if the person they're caring for has no money to pay for treatment - anyone who enters the medical profession to make money has entered the wrong career.

Those that do not help themselves I have no sympathy for. That's my right to have that opinion.

Yes, it is your right to hold that opinion, however flawed we may think it is, but you should consider those who can't help themselves - such as the mentally or physically disabled. Do they deserve to die because it's impossible for them to help themselves?

SD Nihil
09-23-2008, 06:03 PM
Levels of care and increase of pay yes can be changed. But it's only if the government feels it needs to be changed. Those that got their procedure done quickly that was because the government determined it was necessary and urgent.

With CHC you are not subject to the government telling you when you can advance or gain pay. The only limiter is you and how hard to work you want to work.

And it depends also on the type of UHC government. If it is socialistic or communistic. Here's a search results source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=universal+health+care+government+determines+leve l+of+care+and+advancement&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

The 'best' doctors are those who will care for a patient without thinking of fees, or other such nonsense.

We do think of care first, but fees yes we think of also. Food on the table means you have to get paid.

Posting a list of links on Google is not providing a source, nor is it proving your point. You can't simply say 'here's the evidence, if you can find it'.

If you'd click on the links and read you'd learn. I'm not about to post so many links. I just don't care to. You can easily click on them. I'll do what I want when posting my sources anyway.
If you're wanting to support your argument, you really need to provide the specific sources to support your claim. Others do work for their claims, please do the work for yours, or there's no point to your argument. --Jae

A Doctor's first, and only duty, is to care for the sick, no matter what their circumstances are, or who they are.

A doctor shouldn't care if the person they're caring for has no money to pay for treatment - anyone who enters the medical profession to make money has entered the wrong career.

Later we think of the patient's lack of income if they don't have it. But at the time we think only of the patients care. We later think that patient had no money and that my tax dollars have to pay for his lack. But not the first thing we think of.

Look at the results. I feel that no matter what I post as a source it won't get approved of if it supports and proves what I've been saying because you guys I feel won't change your views anyway. Well neither will I. That's my right too.

Lance Monance
09-23-2008, 06:08 PM
I think your stance on poverty (and how to get out of it) is wrong on a fundamental level, SD Nihil.
You stated repeatedly that hard work and effort will always enable you to beat poverty. But that's only one factor, out of many. You have to consider all of those. Surely you agree that chance, luck and circumstances are important as well? What about talent and intelligence? Either you're born with those traits or you're not. They affect your success, just like effort does.

Long story short, some people will not be able to afford healthcare, no matter how hard they try.

Astor
09-23-2008, 06:11 PM
Those that got their procedure done quickly that was because the government determined it was necessary and urgent.

No, they got their care quickly because a Doctor deemed it necessary and urgent.

The Government provides funding, and leaves the Doctoring to those who are qualified.

If you'd click on the links and read you'd learn. I'm not about to post so many links. I just don't care to. You can easily click on them. I'll do what I want when posting my sources anyway.

I'm not clicking them because those links provide more links to hundreds of pages - how am I supposed to know which pages are supporting your viewpoint?


I feel that no matter what I post as a source it won't get approved of if it supports and proves what I've been saying because you guys I feel won't change your views anyway. Well neither will I. That's my right too.

I haven't got a set stance, and i'm willing to see things from another angle, but you haven't said a single thing that convinces me that a CHC is better.

Also, you didn't address the question at the end of my last post.

SD Nihil
09-23-2008, 06:14 PM
think your stance on poverty (and how to get out of it) is wrong on a fundamental level, SD Nihil.
You stated repeatedly that hard work and effort will always enable you to beat poverty. But that's only one factor, out of many. You have to consider all of those. Surely you agree that chance, luck and circumstances are important as well? What about talent and intelligence? Either you're born with those traits or you're not. They affect your success, just like effort does.

Long story short, some people will not be able to afford healthcare, no matter how hard they try.

And you have right to your view. I've never said always you can get out of poverty. Maybe it's the government, maybe you continue to have bad luck no matter what, or maybe a둸 way to get out of it came along, but you didn't see it would work.

I'm not saying always. I said if you work and try and do your best in your life, in a capitalistic society more times than not you'll succeed. I believe this.

No, they got their care quickly because a Doctor deemed it necessary and urgent.

The Government provides funding, and leaves the Doctoring to those who are qualified.

That's what we have in CHC. The doc determines care. UHC government has ultimate control over levels of care and advancement.

And the funding comes from high taxes on the people.

I'm not clicking them because those links provide more links to hundreds of pages - how am I supposed to know which pages are supporting your viewpoint?

And how can you expect me to pick out from so many links either. There is too much evidence on it. Look yourself at the many links. I know what I believe and you know what you believe. Your not going to ever change me. I bet neither I am not going to change you.

I haven't got a set stance, and I'm willing to see things from another angle, but you haven't said a single thing that convinces me that a CHC is better.

Also, you didn't address the question at the end of my last post.

In my opinion you sure don't act like it. And that's your opinion that you think I haven't answered it.

El Sitherino
09-23-2008, 06:19 PM
You act as though Universal Healthcare is just some "everything free" insurance plan. Why is that?

SD Nihil
09-23-2008, 06:29 PM
You act as though Universal Healthcare is just some "everything free" insurance plan. Why is that?

Free? No not free. It costs a lot. Not free at all. Government controls on advancement, wages, and care. That's my opinion. And this quite is your interpretation of what you thought I think which in my opinion I never said or think.

SW01
09-23-2008, 07:52 PM
No, it is by no means completely free, it is paid for, as I said, through the national insurance contribution in income taxation. But, as has been said elsewhere, you must take into consideration the fact that such a thing overrules the need for everyone to pay for health insurance separately. From what I understand, the contribution we make is less than is required to maintain an insurance plan.

Also, on the government being too financially strained to cope, the NHS in Britain was set up only a few years after the Second World War. The government then was not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

Jae Onasi
09-23-2008, 08:17 PM
I've done an externship in the VA, which is a federal universal health care system for veterans. The doctors and staff consistently gave excellent care. Some of the best research and changes in standards of care in glaucoma have come out of work done with VA patients. The doctors and other staff advanced according to position in the federal system and time in grade and do very well.

Some excellent medical research is coming out of UHC systems like in the UK, France, and Canada. In some ways the research is easier to do in UHC systems because of quicker access to greater amounts of data. These countries regularly update their standards of care to incorporate new treatments and healthcare delivery systems.

Also, we could simply extend Medicare to everyone. That would get rid of the then-redundant Medicaid system and save states a ton of money, and it would still allow competition in the health care system. There are lots of ways to ensure everyone has universal access to healthcare.

I don't want to hear anymore crap about how poor people are poor because they're just lazy. My mother-in-law worked her butt off all her life. She didn't have the intellectual ability or the money to go to college to get the kind of job that would have allowed her to leave poverty. She raised 9 kids, helped run a farm so you and I would have things to actually eat, and worked very hard in the jobs she did have. She worked even after getting hurt on a job so badly that her back was never the same. She didn't have the opportunities you and I have had. She didn't live in a place that had a lot of opportunities, and didn't have the money to move. She hardly had enough to pay for basic things like electricity, water, and food.

Try volunteering in a homeless shelter some time. You'll discover that the great majority of people who end up there are not lazy. They're often times still working in a job, but had so many emergencies and just plain bad things happen to them all at once that it put them so far behind financially they couldn't get out. Yes, some poor people could work harder and improve their lives. Most poor people aren't where they're at because of laziness, however, and I find this continued assumption that they are quite offensive and just plain wrong. While I was working on my college degrees, I was extremely poor. I couldn't afford anything but the very basic college health insurance. If I had had a major medical problem, it would have bankrupt me. Your assertion that while I was poor, I was just being lazy, is completely incorrect.

Web Rider
09-23-2008, 09:25 PM
Less options with UHC.
By your own standards below this is not true.

Less likely to have that option on UHC. In both PHC and UHC there might not be a good doc for your condition. But in PHC if there is money to be made there will be someone working on a treatment.
Exactly, if there is a local hospital, and a local doctor, it doesn't matter if the hospital is UHC or CHC. The options remain the same.

With UHC there is less incentive to do that. No reward. Unless the country's UHC government designates a doctor to work on this condition. Again the care you get in America isn't hindered by a level of care level set by a UHC system.
Honestly, I'd rather it be hindered by a UHC system than by greed. Which is what you are saying defines a doctors decision to provide service. Not if it keeps people healthy, but if it makes them money. As people who've posted here have attested to, that is not the motivating factor for becoming a doctor.

If money is the only motivating factor in your life, that's fine, but don't assume that just because we live in a mostly capitalist nation that money is the ONLY motivating factor for everyone.

That's right. You try to find the best doc that is good for your budget and good for you medically. UHC you can't choose level of care.
I think I just heard a "woosh" when that went over your head. Since you missed my point, here's what I'm syaing.

You just broke your leg.
You need it fixed.
You have a thousand dollars.
Everywhere you go that provides any leg-fixing service and won't leave you with a myriad of other problems(such as infections, disease, or having your eye eaten out by ants), costs $2000 dollars.
Because your leg is broken you cannot work, because you can't afford to get it fixed, you are now disabled. You can never work again, and because you have no money you can't even afford a wheelchair to get around in.
You now put no money in to the system and become a drain on society.

Under UHC system your leg is fixed through taxes you and others pay and you're back at work putting money into the system a few weeks later.

You know, for some reason, I find it impossible to argue against a system that will not turn you in to a drain on society because you don't have enough money.

That's why if it's a risky surgery and the doc refuses to do it even though you are paying them then find another.
that wasn't my point at all. My point is as follows.
Dr A has a great record.
-this is because he doesn't do procedures A, Z, and G
Dr B has an ok record.
-This is because he takes on far more patients, but for all his efforts can't save them all.

My point is that even though Dr A has a better record, this does not make him the best doctor for the job. Because his record does not include the procedure you need.
~snipped flame~

Yar-El
09-23-2008, 09:59 PM
Seeing as though others are not going to say anything. Each one of our opinions is justified to ourselves. How we each preceive the world depends upon our own experiences and lifespace. My perception of an issue is different from everyone elses. Making the case for or against Universal Health Care is not simple. We have an argument over morals, and one over another set of morals. Do we help those in need over the expense of taking away from another? That is a tough argument to make. Do we take from one person's table to feed another who is capable? Another tough argument to make. Do we prevent those who need assistance from not getting it due to illness or physical condition? Another tough argument to make. Some people see a clear line between good and evil, and others see a world of gray tones. We have a heavy debate on this issue, and both sides are yelling foul. Volunteers and visitors are both yelling at the same time. If the solution to this problem was simple, we wouldn't have people in congress fighting. LucasForums is about bringing people together. We as humanbeings cannot help but express through emotions. It is our nature.

One of the deepest theories known is easy to understand. Mankind will eventually destroy itself. Why? We are both cunning and vial at the same time. We are capable in making weapons of mass destruction, but we are incapable of solving the more easier aspects of life. The debate in this forum reminds me of such argument. What is human? What is moral? What is freedom? Was it responsible?

One of the well known quotes in science-fiction comes to mind. "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few, or the one." I don't know if we can fully comprehend this paradigm in our lifetime. Living in a world where we are split right down the line can blend the majority. Where does the many stand? We may have a majority that believe one way in these forums, but where does the majority of the world stand? We can argue and debate for days, and we will never be closser to an answer.

While posting in this thread, I want everyone (volunteer and visitor) alike to keep this post in mind. This issue does not have an easy solution, and we may never see a true concensous to this argument.

Achilles
09-23-2008, 10:03 PM
I suggest everyone take a break, read some John Rawls, and then come back and talk about whether anything we're discussing here is really a "tough decision".

Bee Hoon
09-23-2008, 10:13 PM
To SD Nihil,

As Astor_Kaine has already pointed out, the onus is on you to find sources to back up your claims.

Appeal to them with your plight. They might show sympathy on you and your situation.An interesting question here is whether you would offer them a job, should you be put in that situation.

I do know what he knows when I talk to him. I learned his medical knowledge when he'd talk about it. I learned of his experiences.A few conversations cannot hope to convey a lifetime of experience and knowledge. Until you have been through the same training and practiced for 40 years, I remain sceptical. And even if you have--I only accept your expertise as a nurse anesthetist, not as a doctor or a community medicine specialist.

It is good that your father cared about his brother, but it is irrelevant to the topic.

Those in the medical field take the Hippocratic oath which is to do no harm. We show kindness and sympathy for those good people who worked and bad things happened to them. We don't for those that didn't try.

literacy. Yes we have that too. Though I'm not sure how that has to do with UHC. We allow all citizens to have access to being literate. We are humane. Our hospitals are clean.I wonder why you keep saying "we" when referring to those in healthcare. Are you working in the healthcare system? If so, as what?

I am fully aware of the Hippocratic oath, and it seems that the point of my post just flew past your head. You, as a person, are not humane. Your stance on poverty is appalling, and you would rather clutch a fistful of dollar bills to your chest than to alleviate a poor person's suffering.

As Jae and many of us have repeatedly pointed out, poverty is not always a person's fault. Has it ever occurred to you that illness can drive a person into poverty? Ironic, but it does happen.

~snipped~

Literacy may be available for all, but there are families who are so desperate that their children have to drop out of school to help support them.

Those that do not help themselves I have no sympathy for. That's my right to have that opinion.So bloggers do not help themselves? I might have taken that as a personal slur, except that it's far too absurd. You might note that many LFers have blogs, all of whom have demonstrated far more compassion and maturity than you have.

Which system of health are are you saying they get higher wages on experience? If you mean CHC then yes. For UHC not for doing a better surgery I believe.
I speak personally for the Malaysian health system, (if I remember correctly, housemen are ranked U48, medical officers U52, so on until heads of departments are ranked U64 or similar). As they ascend in rank, their pay also rises--not as much as they might get working in the private hospitals, but most of them have that inner spark to serve the people. The government also provides post-graduate opportunities at local universities.

No because it was one instance that only told about a country that matched CHC's mortality level. Not one that was better. Even if there was. The majority of countries that have CHC and those that have UHC II believe CHC have overall better results for the majority.Well, there is definite proof that you didn't click on them. The links I provided are articles which deal with factors leading to poverty. Nice to know that my courtesy in providing direct links was wasted effort.

And how can you expect me to pick out from so many links either. There is too much evidence on it. Look yourself at the many links. I know what I believe and you know what you believe. Your not going to ever change me. I bet neither I am not going to change you.Once again, as Astor_Kaine has pointed out, you should back up your claims with specific evidence. We are not beholden to do your footwork for you (and here one may be tempted to call you lazy, and a conservative like yourself would condemn you to poverty).

I am open to your viewpoint, if you would only start giving us solid proof that universal healthcare is worse than healthcare controlled by capitalist MCOs, as opposed to whining that we should google it ourselves and that poor people are a black hole for your tax money. Until you do so, all further debate is a waste of time as you clearly refuse to educate yourself on the subject, even when we spoon-feed you with links.

Edit: Do we help those in need over the expense of taking away from another? That is a tough argument to make. Do we take from one person's table to feed another who is capable?How is taxing those who can afford it to provide care for those who cannot, in any way comparable to stealing the food off their tables? After all, those who have problems putting food on the table probably fall out of the tax bracket or are taxed minimal amounts. Keep in mind that these are the same people whom you and SD Nihil regard as lazy bums who enjoy living in poverty.

How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being.

Yar-El
09-23-2008, 10:15 PM
I suggest everyone take a break, read some John Rawls, and then come back and talk about whether anything we're discussing here is really a "tough decision". Taking a break is a great idea. Everyone will come to a conclusion of their own when they are ready, and not when others want them to be ready.
How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being. I haven't changed my mind. I'm more concerned about what this subject is doing to good people (on both sides of the subject).

This post does not contribute to the topic of health care. Please stay on topic. --Jae

I understand Jae.

Jae Onasi
09-23-2008, 11:11 PM
Honestly, this thread has been more work than the religion threads. Sheesh.

If you all want this thread to stay open for discussion, you should all review the rules before you post anything further.
1. We have and will hand out infractions for flaming, and name-calling is definitely flaming. You only need 10 points before you get temp-banned, and some of you are earning plenty just in this thread.
2. If you make a claim, it's generally bad form to tell everyone else to look up your sources for you, and then complain at them when they don't.
3. Leave the moderating to the moderators. Either post something that contributes to the topic, or don't post, please. We're just going to delete those as spam.

Keep it civil, folks.

Astor
09-24-2008, 04:38 AM
That's what we have in CHC. The doc determines care. UHC government has ultimate control over levels of care and advancement.

And the funding comes from high taxes on the people.

No, as i've said, it's my Doctor that determines the level of care I recieve, not the government.

And a slightly higher tax is a small price for the knowledge that I won't have to pay more for surgery should I be involved in a car accident, or should I need drugs if I develop a condition.

I'd much rather have universal care for all, as opposed to great care for some. Yes, it has it's flaws, but with Universal Healthcare, the Elderly, the Infirm, the Young, and both Physically and mentally disabled will all recieve care, whereas with your system, they have the potential to be cast aside in favour of more affluent patients.

It's sad that a 'civilised' society should charge its citizens for what should be one of their most basic rights.

EDIT: It might also interest you to know that the NHS doesn't simply recieve funding from taxes. Funding is also recieved from prescription drug fees (meaning you only need to pay for aftercare, not the primary care) and other services such as sight tests and dentistry.

http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Prescriptioncosts.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Eyecarecosts.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Healthcosts/Pages/Dentalcosts.aspx

SW01
09-24-2008, 07:18 AM
Consider it like this - in a capitalist health care system, all the money you contribute to your health plans is being stuffed into an insurance company's pockets. They are hoping that you will never claim on it, and that company alone profits by it. Then, if you miss paying it and fall ill, you are stuffed. And, if ever you are admitted to hospital, they will want you out at the first available opportunity - to stop spending your money on you.

With Universal systems, you make a tax contribution to the healthcare system. This is used to fund that system - to improve equipment, to train doctors, nurses, etc., to put up new wards and facilities. While you may not need it right away, your contribution helps to improve the Health service as a whole. Then, whenever you need it, it is there. Whenever someone else needs it, it is there.

To me, that just makes better sense. When I am throwing money at something to do with health every month, quarter, year, whatever, I would prefer that my money goes to improving the provision of healthcare, rather than an insurance broker's new car.

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 09:48 AM
No, it is by no means completely free, it is paid for, as I said, through the national insurance contribution in income taxation. But, as has been said elsewhere, you must take into consideration the fact that such a thing overrules the need for everyone to pay for health insurance separately. From what I understand, the contribution we make is less than is required to maintain an insurance plan.

Also, on the government being too financially strained to cope, the NHS in Britain was set up only a few years after the Second World War. The government then was not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination.

Nothing is completely fair in life. I simply believe that CHC is more more fair. You can't change what I think.

Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice. And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.

"Less than to maintain an insurance plan". In CHC if an insurance company fails then they fail. You shop for the most competitive and one you want. With UHC if that government is socialistic or communistic then you have to pay because the government says so. Less choice. In socialism or communism if the UHC insurance company fails I believe you'll get charged more to keep that one alive or government bail out.

I've done an externship in the VA, which is a federal universal health care system for veterans. The doctors and staff consistently gave excellent care. Some of the best research and changes in standards of care in glaucoma have come out of work done with VA patients. The doctors and other staff advanced according to position in the federal system and time in grade and do very well.


Yes, but it is also in a government that is capitalistic. And people in the military don't have to seek help from the VA. They have the choice to seek Private Health Care.

Some excellent medical research is coming out of UHC systems like in the UK, France, and Canada. In some ways the research is easier to do in UHC systems because of quicker access to greater amounts of data. These countries regularly update their standards of care to incorporate new treatments and healthcare delivery systems.

With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.

Also, we could simply extend Medicare to everyone. That would get rid of the then-redundant Medicaid system and save states a ton of money, and it would still allow competition in the health care system. There are lots of ways to ensure everyone has universal access to healthcare.

To pay for it that will come with more taxes and cost to the people.

I don't want to hear anymore crap about how poor people are poor because they're just lazy. My mother-in-law worked her butt off all her life. She didn't have the intellectual ability or the money to go to college to get the kind of job that would have allowed her to leave poverty. She raised 9 kids, helped run a farm so you and I would have things to actually eat, and worked very hard in the jobs she did have. She worked even after getting hurt on a job so badly that her back was never the same. She didn't have the opportunities you and I have had. She didn't live in a place that had a lot of opportunities, and didn't have the money to move. She hardly had enough to pay for basic things like electricity, water, and food.

You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.

An interesting question here is whether you would offer them a job, should you be put in that situation

If I am to give another a job I have to take under consideration the pros and cons of hiring. Will it look good for my business to outweigh the cost of hiring them. Am I willing to take a hit money wise to pay for them at the expense of me. Will I gain new skills brought by the employee. Will he effect sales in a good way or bad way.

In the end it's something I'd just have to weigh. If I was in that same position of needing a job I hope that same thought process is used on me. I don't want to be a burden to the company if I can't bring to the table. Some will end up on the street because though they tried they didn't get the job in time.

It doesn't mean that once your on the stret that's now your life. You keep trying. Wish I could remember the name of the movie, but it was about this black guy with his son. His mother left because though he was selling these x ray machines he wasn't making the money.

He ended up having to go to a shelter. Living on the street. We are humane. We have shelters and places to go. But not forever. People must see there that you are choosing to try to find work. If your not they won't keep you in their doors. But if your trying they'll be compassionate.

Anyway, the guy got an interview finally even though he was in rag clothes. But he used that to his interview. Got the job. Worked hard. Oh it was investment advice he was selling in the company he got this job.

He ended up being a millionaire and having his own company. Wish I could remember the name though.

But that shows rags to riches. That shows you can have all the bad breaks and still go places. Again not always, but more times than not.

And there here in America is always shelter, soup kitins, etc. But people there have to see you are at least trying to make your own way.

A few conversations cannot hope to convey a lifetime of experience and knowledge. Until you have been through the same training and practiced for 40 years, I remain skeptical. And even if you have--I only accept your expertise as a nurse anesthetist, not as a doctor or a community medicine specialist.

It is good that your father cared about his brother, but it is irrelevant to the topic.

The more I talk to him I do. Don't dismiss my father. It isn't irrelevant. It shows those in CHC have compassion and that we are a humane system.



I am fully aware of the Hippocratic oath, and it seems that the point of my post just flew past your head. You, as a person, are not humane. Your stance on poverty is appalling, and you would rather clutch a fistful of dollar bills to your chest than to alleviate a poor person's suffering.

As Jae and many of us have repeatedly pointed out, poverty is not always a person's fault. Has it ever occurred to you that illness can drive a person into poverty? Ironic, but it does happen.

The we I was referring to is the US. And for the rest of this is your opinion.

So bloggers do not help themselves? I might have taken that as a personal slur, except that it's far too absurd. You might note that many LFers have blogs, all of whom have demonstrated far more compassion and maturity than you have.

The keyword you forgot is if. If they do not help themselves then yes I have no sympathy for them. Only pity. That's my right to believe that way.

I speak personally for the Malaysian health system, (if I remember correctly, housemen are ranked U48, medical officers U52, so on until heads of departments are ranked U64 or similar). As they ascend in rank, their pay also rises--not as much as they might get working in the private hospitals, but most of them have that inner spark to serve the people. The government also provides post-graduate opportunities at local universities.

That's your one country among others who might not have as much success. Also when something is ranked it depends on who the person did the ranking. It depends also on that person's stance on UHC.

From our American perspective we feel our CHC is better than most UHCs. That's what we think and present evidence to support that. As other countries do the same if they have a UHC. It wouldn't look good to present info that shows UHC to be not as good as CHC.

I think when you get down to things it's all a matter of what you believe. Any data can especially today can be interoperated the way one chooses.

I say to the onlookers of this thread just watching. Don't take our words for it find your own opinion. Lokk yourself. Come to your own conclusions. If you don't agree with your government's current health care system then change it by voting, making your voice known to your senators, etc.

You can do this in the US. That's what in my opinion makes us so great. You can disagree with your government without receiving persecution from our government.

Well, there is definite proof that you didn't click on them. The links I provided are articles which deal with factors leading to poverty. Nice to know that my courtesy in providing direct links was wasted effort.

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.

Especially when onlookers on this thread can themselves look up the info on their owns and make up their own minds.

Who am I to tell them how to think. Besides, I feel that most of us if not all of us posting here already have our minds made up.

own is taxing those who can afford it to provide care for those who cannot, in any way comparable to stealing the food off their tables? After all, those who have problems putting food on the table probably fall out of the tax bracket or are taxed minimal amounts. Keep in mind that these are the same people whom you and SD Nihil regard as lazy bums who enjoy living in poverty.

How pleasant that you're suddenly so worried about their well-being.

Because it's taking what isn't yours. That's my money not yours. I should be able to choose which charity or who I wish to give or not give to. That is my free right as an US citizen. No government should tell me who disadvantaged I'm to give to. It's not their place.

The government and health care systems shouldn't play robin hood.

No, as I've said, it's my Doctor that determines the level of care I receive, not the government.

I said ultimately it's up to the government.

As far as sauces is concerned I can say they only looked at someone who had their own opinion. Or let's say it was Fox. That's a biased organization. I can say it about CNN. I can say these or those stats are based on that country's opinion and withholding and giving info that they want to present.

And this is not moderating to say make your own decisions and find yourself. It's just a lot is based on opinion and who is writing the facts on this and that. If I give into that supports CHC that might be viewed as just from a person or group that prefers that. O Readily is well researched. Some just say he lies or is evil.

So really it's all up to everyone's opinion.

And a slightly higher tax is a small price for the knowledge that I won't have to pay more for surgery should I be involved in a car accident, or should I need drugs if I develop a condition.

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.

I'd much rather have universal care for all, as opposed to great care for some. Yes, it has it's flaws, but with Universal Healthcare, the Elderly, the Infirm, the Young, and both Physically and mentally disabled will all receive care, whereas with your system, they have the potential to be cast aside in favor of more affluent patients.

It's sad that a 'civilized society should charge its citizens for what should be one of their most basic rights.

Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.

Fine her's some proof. I can deal with a headache at least today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW4b-uJlxJ8

O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

Astor
09-24-2008, 10:11 AM
Nothing is completely fair in life. I simply believe that CHC is more more fair. You can't change what I think.

It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.

An amount paid by someone can't be an opinion.

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice.

No, I reserve the right as patient to recieve a second opinion, and if i'm unhappy with the doctor i'm assigned, I can ask to be treated by another.

And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.

Let me break down how it works here in the UK:

We have Primary Care Trusts - they are responsible for the big decisions.

Then we have Hospital Trusts. These trusts are responsible for the Hospitals, and consequently, how care is administered.

The only thing the government is responsible for is the political side.

With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.

What?

You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.

She's a moderator, and she's right.

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.

If you're not willing to take the time to research, then why are we even having this discussion?

I said ultimately it's up to the government.

No, it isn't, but I'm not going to bother mentioning it any more, as it's clear that you seem to think that UHCs are evil.

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.

Why not? I'm reminded of a famous quote:

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country

Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.

The NHS is duty bound to provide the highest standards and quality of care to all who require, at the point of delivery. The Government has little say in this.

O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

:rofl:

Jae Onasi
09-24-2008, 11:16 AM
Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't make the amount paid any less than a CHC in my opinion.It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or tittle wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.

CHC you can pay who you want to do the surgery. UHC you have less choice. And all is subject to the government's almighty decision in the end.When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever s/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

"Less than to maintain an insurance plan". In CHC if an insurance company fails then they fail. You shop for the most competitive and one you want. With UHC if that government is socialistic or communistic then you have to pay because the government says so. Less choice. In socialism or communism if the UHC insurance company fails I believe you'll get charged more to keep that one alive or government bail out.UHC spreads the risk out over the entire population, not just those who are willing to pay for insurance. We already pay through taxes for Medicaid for anyone on welfare already, and Medicare for the over-65 crowd. UHC would extend healthcare to everyone in the working and middle classes who can't afford insurance right now because of pre-existing conditions, inadequate funds, workplaces not offering health care, and so on. Spreading out the risk might make the costs for us who do pay insurance now go down.


Yes, but it is also in a government that is capitalistic. And people in the military don't have to seek help from the VA. They have the choice to seek Private Health Care.How many disabled veterans do you know who are able to afford the extremely high costs of private health insurance? You're assuming they a. have the funds to pay out of pocket or b. have the funds to pay the outrageous fees that an insurance company would charge for someone who has a pre-existing condition.



With CHC we get to our patients quick too. We make advancements in medicine too. There's less to gain from making a cure in UHC because the government can decide if you should get paid for your work or if you have to steel your idea to the government.Research projects are approved here for gov't grants before the work begins, and that's the same in other countries, too. Why would there be less gain from creating a cure? In either system there's a drive to find treatments that are less invasive, more effective, and less costly, because both insurance companies and the gov't want to minimize costs as much as possible. I read British ophthalmology studies just like I do American ones. Why? Both countries are doing great research in eye care, and CHC or UHC has had no bearing on that. I would like to see an example or statistic on where someone has done research for an UHC system and not gotten paid, because I find that difficult to believe.


You have no right to tell me how to think or post. The only power you have is to make sure I don't break forum rules. I never said all poor people are poor and in pain because of their lack of work. Yes there are some instances where people have worked hard and just had bad luck come their way. But in the US the majority who work get rewarded.
When I speak as a moderator I use the different color to differentiate from when I post as a fellow member so there is no confusion.
You have repeatedly stated that poor people are being lazy and could get out of poverty if they worked harder. A number of us have shown you situations where that is simply not true. I, as a fellow member here, aml personally tired of hearing that an entire group of people are lazy and therefore should be denied a basic right to healthcare.





Some will end up on the street because though they tried they didn't get the job in time.
And these are the same 'lazy people' that you say don't deserve basic health care.
Wish I could remember the name of the movie, but it was about this black guy with his son. His mother left because though he was selling these x ray machines he wasn't making the money....He ended up being a millionaire and having his own company. Wish I could remember the name though.You're using a fiction to prove your point?


The more I talk to him I do. Don't dismiss my father. It isn't irrelevant. It shows those in CHC have compassion and that we are a humane system.It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.




From our American perspective we feel our CHC is better than most UHCs. That's what we think and present evidence to support that. As other countries do the same if they have a UHC. It wouldn't look good to present info that shows UHC to be not as good as CHC.
Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.

I think when you get down to things it's all a matter of what you believe. Any data can especially today can be interoperated the way one chooses.Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Too many links like you said. You might be picking out just a few to support your opinion. The point is I'm way to busy and don't care to research that heavily.I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.

Especially when onlookers on this thread can themselves look up the info on their owns and make up their own minds.Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.

Who am I to tell them how to think. Besides, I feel that most of us if not all of us posting here already have our minds made up.That doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.

Because it's taking what isn't yours. That's my money not yours. I should be able to choose which charity or who I wish to give or not give to. That is my free right as an US citizen. No government should tell me who disadvantaged I'm to give to. It's not their place.So, don't pay for your own insurance then, because you might be paying for someone else's care. That's how insurance works--it charges money to you based on a certain risk level. If you don't get sick, great, but you're paying for someone else's care who did get sick. A UHC would spread that risk to a greater number of people so that our total premiums/taxes at a personal level could be lower.

The government and health care systems shouldn't play robin hood.You think insurance companies are completely transparent? Excuse me while I double over laughing, with all due respect to mimartin.



I said ultimately it's up to the government.
No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.

And this is not moderating to say make your own decisions and find yourself. It's just a lot is based on opinion and who is writing the facts on this and that. If I give into that supports CHC that might be viewed as just from a person or group that prefers that. Instead of providing this long explanation of why you don't want to provide facts to back your position, how about you provide some facts and let each reader make his or her own decision?

I don't think it will be slight. And I don't want the government or a UHC to tell me I must pay for someone else.Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.


Amount getting care doesn't mean all will get quality of care they need unless ultimately the government says so.No--the voters say so. Do you honestly think that poor care would get covered up? No. There will be whistle-blowers in any system. At least the gov't has accountability to all voters, rather than just their shareholders.

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 11:16 AM
It's not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

In your opinion.

An amount paid by someone can't be an opinion.

I wasn't disputing that.

If someone gives they give.

No, I reserve the right as patient to receive a second opinion, and if I'm unhappy with the doctor I'm assigned, I can ask to be treated by another.

Proof, and my point is you have less control over your taxes, choice of level of care because again that's regulated by the government. The government whether the doc made one ultimately the government can say in their opinion how soon you get that surgery.

UHC differs from government to government depending on restrictions and limits set by the government.

We have Primary Care Trusts - they are responsible for the big decisions.

What if the patients whets another treatment? The government can say no if they want to.

Then we have Hospital Trusts. These trusts are responsible for the Hospitals, and consequently, how care is administered.

And because it's not privatized the tax payer has to pay for it. Whereas CHC you can choose to pay for that hospital or not by seeking this hospital or not. They get paid when you pay them if you wish to pay them for their services.

In the US those that come in without money don't even have to and we still try to save their lives though our taxes go up as a result. Does it mean their poverty is their fault no. But if they never tried then yes. If they end up on the streets we're a humane nation with shelters who take in those who are trying to make their way and who do not give up.

The only thing the government is responsible for is the political side.

Meaning to treat this minority quicker than this non minority group? Explain what you mean.

What?

Spell checker made a mistake of what I mistyped. I meant instead of steel I meant sell. But then again sell is not correct. The government can easily take your idea for their own if they wanted.

She's a moderator, and she's right.

That has nothing to do with the topic anyway, but that's true. They can moderate and take action if I do not follow rules. But they cannot or should not tell me or make me not post or speak how I wish to speak about poverty as long as I'm not breaking forum rules.

If you're not willing to take the time to research, then why are we even having this discussion?

I've seen less than a handful of instances where you guys have given credible sources either. And this about sources isn't on topic in my opinion. That's not moderating. That's me giving my opinion.
The moderators will do the moderating. Thank you.

No, it isn't, but I'm not going to bother mentioning it any more, as it's clear that you seem to think that UHCs are evil.

In your opinion. And I never said evil. I simply disagree with it.

Why not? I'm reminded of a famous quote:

I believe JFK was referring to not UHC he was referring to people working. But many things that our leaders of the past have said have been subject to other's opinions, stances, and interpretations. I could say he was maybe referring to the space program and what they can do for this country. See interpretation.

The NHS is duty bound to provide the highest standards and quality of care to all who require, at the point of delivery. The Government has little say in this.

A standard set and changed based on what the government thinks. A standard in which they can deem what is considered good level of care. Whereas CHC you determine what level of care you wish to receive based on your income and what doc you go to, what hospital you go to, what state you get it from, what insurance you use, and how hard you work.

Originally Posted by SD Nihil
O Reilly is a smart guy. Forward to about 1 min and 50 sec into it.

Your smiley you put under this isn't an argument. It's just a smiley.

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs.

I don't want to pay all that. And again government in general even in America is slow when to do this and that. The Commission for the Blind in states is too.

UHC is subject to government regulation.

It would certainly streamline claims processing if we had only one form to process. Right now, the office I work at takes several hundred different plans. They pretty much are all different, and all the forms are different, and getting one little jot or title wrong on the claim form means it gets bounced back to us as rejected. Less paperwork means less labor costs

Documentation is good from a legal standpoint in that it protects the patient from errors that can effect their plan of care. Paperwork is needed to be correct. You want not the wrong person to get billed or the wrong insurance to be written. Paperwork makes those providing care liable for mistakes. It protects your rights. Let's you know the fine print of things.

If you didn't have paperwork how can you go to court and make a case for mal treatment. Especially if the government is backing the UHC system. They are paying the government your money. Why would they go against their own system that is paying them. Why would they want annoy anyone.

They protect their own interests. And the UHC has the government's interests at heart.

When I was in the military system, I had a choice of which orthopedic surgeons I wanted to go to, and I had a choice of which hospital systems within the military that I wanted to go to. I still did my research on the surgeons that were on the military plan. The VA is the same--a vet can go to whatever VA hospital he wants, and can see whoever so/he wants to within the system. My current insurance limits who I can go to based on who accepts my plan, so I'm not sure what you mean by lack of choice. I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

The VA of the US? If so then that really isn't a UHC system. Because the government is capitalistic. And you can go elsewhere for care besides the VA which is not privatized care.

I might actually have more choice if every single doctor was on the same universal plan.

Those with a government that have UHC don't have the choice of not to pay for the UHC. Their tax dollars go to it. They don't have the choice to go to another hospital that is privately run care. If the docs are not on the same page that's their decision and feelings they are entitled to. You cannot make someone think or believe the way you want. If you do that's intolerance, that's oppression. And when a country or people cannot allow or punish those for their opinions then that is fascism. Communism does this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
Also UHC where you said insurance isn't separate from the expenses. That doesn't make it any less of a bill. That doesn't and
Large non-contributory block quote removed for streamlined reading.

Did I say always it was their fault. No. I said their is food for them, shelters for them, programs for them, and we do provide aid in emergency cases.

It shows that your father has compassion. I've seen plenty of discrimination by insurance companies against those with pre-existing conditions, i.e. they won't even give the person coverage, or will only do so at a rate significantly higher than someone without that condition. The CHC is about making money, pure and simple. I doubt your dad ever had to deal with billing and insurance issues anyway--the hospital insurance department likely took care of that for him, so he never had to deal with the money side of this.

It doesn't mean that insurance companies in UHC don't think of profit. It means also that wages are also controlled and set by the government in UHC.

Our own statistics in the US show our CHC system is not as good as many UHCs in infant mortality and maternal mortality. The World Health Organization provides a lot of health stats that countries can't hide, and also ranks the US a lot lower in infant/maternal mortality than in a significant number of other countries.

It depends on who did the study, how they arranged the info, how they sun it, what info they left out, and their own bias.

Please explain to me how infant and maternal mortality rates can be interpreted in multiple ways.

Depends on where the study was taken, who's hospital they polled, what state, country, did they compare a state to a government, what countries they compared, and who did the study.

I see. You aren't interested in educating yourself on something that differs from your opinion. That's a pity.

Your not changing your view either. We both have our minds made up. You don't want to learn either in my opinion.

Then why are you posting here? If you want to present your opinion, fine, but don't give people a hard time when they ask you for proof to back up why you think that way. That's grossly unfair.

I'm not. I just believe whatever I post will be up to interpretation. Like the O Reily source. He researched, but his research was done by one who had an opinion. And one who could've manipulated facts, or not. Or facts to some may seem to be lies to others.

It's all what you believe is right, your interpretation, and your bias.

hat doesn't mean we can't learn something new or change our minds when we've discovered some information that changes our information.

You don't change either. Your mind is made up. Both of us are on what we think system is better.

You haven't said anything more than what I know already.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SD Nihil View Post
Also UHC
Large non-contributory block quote removed.

No. I'm paying for my own care and their employees wages as a customer. If they use that money where and how they wish for their care then that's their choice. I'm not paying for them. They are paying with their own money.

No, it's ultimately up to us because we vote these people in and out of office. Right now I have zero say in my health insurance management. With UHC I would have some kind of say, no matter how small and how indirect.

The current system you must pay for, if the time comes around to vote to keep it or not. If there isn't a time to vote the system in or out you don't get to vote on it. And you pay a lot for others who some might not have worked hard.

Well, you better not pay insurance then, either, and you better not get sick yourself, because in the first case you're paying for someone else, and in the second case someone else will be paying for you, which you would find completely unfair.

I believe we won't have a UHC. If we do I'll just move to another country that doesn't.

Astor
09-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Proof, and my point is you have less control over your taxes, choice of level of care because again that's regulated by the government. The government whether the doc made one ultimately the government can say in their opinion how soon you get that surgery.

You want me to provide proof that I can ask for a second opinion?

Besides, if i'm ill, i'd rather focus on actually getting the treatment I need as opposed to shopping around for a doctor who will conform to the budget I have.

What if the patients whets another treatment? The government can say no if they want to.

Again, the Government doesn't. A doctor does, after examinations and tests to determine if anything is required.

And because it's not privatized the tax payer has to pay for it.

I've never stated otherwise.

Meaning to treat this minority quicker than this non minority group? Explain what you mean.

I'm curious why you assume I meant about treating minorities. The Government is responsible for the Department of Health, which oversees the NHS.

Spell checker made a mistake of what I mistyped. I meant instead of steel I meant sell. But then again sell is not correct. The government can easily take your idea for their own if they wanted.

Governments tend not to steal research from doctors.

I've seen less than a handful of instances where you guys have given credible sources either. And this about sources isn't on topic in my opinion.

It is on topic if you can't be bother to research for your argument.

Your smiley you put under this isn't an argument. It's just a smiley.

No, it wasn't an argument. But O'Reilly and 'smart' are rarely used together.

mimartin
09-24-2008, 12:02 PM
I tried to stay out of this for the most part, but I am offended by the assumption that all people that don’t have health insurance in the United States are lazy.

Please don’t lump everyone without health insurance or those living below the poverty line into one misunderstood stereotype. According to National Coalition on Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml)there are multiple reason for the uninsured.

You think insurance companies are completely transparent? Excuse me while I double over laughing, with all due respect to mimartin. You’ll get no argument from me. The main reason I don't sell alot of health insurance. The Health Insurance compaines that are more open are also more expensive.

No matter what anyone says, if ran properly UHC would have lower cost than our current system. It is the nature of the beast. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit; UHC would only be in business to cover cost and expenses.
No, it wasn't an argument. But O'Reilly and 'smart' are rarely used together.You don't watch or listen to O'Reilly very much. If you did you'd heard how smart he is all the time. O'Reilly constantly tells the viewer/listener how intelligent he is. Really nice bookend to the “Fair and Balance” propaganda his network puts out.

Yar-El
09-24-2008, 12:50 PM
I tried to stay out of this for the most part, but I am offended by the assumption that all people that don’t have health insurance in the United States are lazy. That is pretty much where we lost everyone. People have been adding words to each other's posts. Originally, I made a comment similar to, "Lazy people who are capable of working, but they don't work, should not be able to obtain free healthcare." I was trying to look at people who do not have jobs, and they try to take advantage of Medicare type systems. Somewhere after my comments, people started to connect lazy people to poor people. Eventually, some people started to talk about death and dying. People mixed poster's comments together, glossed over what was actually said, and then came up with weird interpretations. (See the first few posts of this thread, and you will see how things got twisted.)

Universal Healthcare is a tax burden on everyone. I do support the VA, Medicare, and all the ones we have in place. I don't think making another system is being responsible. We should stregnthen the current systems. Seeing as they allready come out of our paychecks, I don't have a problem with the current system. I do have a problem with a nationalized system. It will be too easy to currupt.

Someone asked a question about how I feel about police, hospitals, and fire departments. Without these systsms in place, we would enter into anarchy. They are a necessity.

Our founding fathers understood the issues with socializing systems. That is why we arrived to the new world. We escaped high taxes, regulated laws pertaining to religion, and other freedom restraining elements. I believe in our founding fathers. Two terms come to mind, "All men are created equal" -- and -- "United we stand, divided we fall". Universal Healthcare does reflect these philosophies, but it does not reflect another philosophy, "Freedom, liberty, and justice for all." Freedom is very important. Our Bill of Rights must still protect the people at all costs. Freedom of choice, speech, bare arms, press, etc... We have a responsibility to protect such freedoms. I want the freedom to choose between hot dogs and hamburgers. I want the freedom to speak about anything I want. I want the freedom to give my money freely, and to not have anyone tell me to do so.

One of the darkests thing to reality is consequences. Do we take a right or do we take a left. Universal Healthcare has more negative consequences than positive ones. Anything that is controlled by an all seeing system is destined to become corrupt, twisted, and anything else you can think of. Everyone is basing their assumptions that everyone in the world is innocent. They are not. Look at the news recently. Our government is regulating the financial system, and they are going to appoint an overseer. Creditcard companies have been regulated for years. Not too long ago sixty-minutes did a piece on creditcard regulation. It turns out that the government overseer is on the side of the creditcard companies. Our government doesn't care about us.

People, regulating a larger form of Universal Healthcare is flawed. We are looking at tax burdens ontop of the financial tax burden ontop of...etc... We are also looking at people who will take advantage of the system. Someone who is able to work (capable), and they don't want to work, is not entittled to free healthcare. They need to pull their weight. Everyone has a great argument for those with medical conditions, but those are not the people I'm talking about. Another fault to a regulated system is government kickbacks. Our current military contracts are going to companies that have friends in office, and they are getting kickbacks for establishing connections. Are you telling me that Blue Cross and Blue Sheild and others won't try the same thing? We need to protect our freedom of choice, and where our money ends up. Keep in mind that Presidents and administrations allways change. Who knows what the future holds. Trust no one.

We don't live in a utopian society.

----

P.S. - Please stop putting words in my mouth.

mimartin
09-24-2008, 01:17 PM
Universal Health Insurance would put the burden on everyone!

The current system only put the burden for the uninsured on the people with health insurance.

The uninsured are still treated, but the cost of that treatment is expensed by the health care provider. Those expenses are passed on to the consumers that can pay. So as the system stands now, we are paying for the uninsured no matter their reason for not having health insurance, but the cost is being absorbed by only those responsible and lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance and with the health history have the opportunity to purchase the insurance.

Please do not forget, many uninsured are unable to purchase or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions. It has nothing to do with want or need, but everything to do with ability to be offered coverage. Universal Health Care gives everyone the ability to have health insurance.

Someone who is able to work (capable), and they don't want to work, is not entittled to free healthcare. Why are you saying it would be free? I don’t consider an increase tax burden free. The way the system now works, people get free medical procedures. People can afford medical insurance, but don’t have it. They still have broken arms, cancer, babies…. Who do you think pays for these medical procedures?

P.S. - Please stop putting words in my mouth. :lol:

Yar-El
09-24-2008, 01:25 PM
Universal Health Insurance would put the burden on everyone!

The current system only put the burden for the uninsured on the people with health insurance.

The uninsured are still treated, but the cost of that treatment is expensed by the health care provider. Those expenses are passed on to the consumers that can pay. So as the system stands now, we are paying for the uninsured no matter their reason for not having health insurance, but the cost is being absorbed by only those responsible and lucky enough to be able to afford health insurance and with the health history have the opportunity to purchase the insurance. Oh, I get it. People who are able to pay are suffering from higher bills due to people who cannot. Well, that s#$ks monkey nuts. They are just dragging the system down by getting free healthcare.


Please do not forget, many uninsured are unable to purchase or afford health insurance due to preexisting conditions. It has nothing to do with want or need, but everything to do with ability to be offered coverage. Universal Health Care gives everyone the ability to have health insurance. Affordable health insurance? That is a tough one.

:lol: :xp:

El Sitherino
09-24-2008, 01:33 PM
So what do you think about a student who is working relatively inconsistent pay (such as lawn jobs, etc.), should they be denied coverage or the benefit of a plan that can get them the help they need should they encounter a fatal rough spot?

SW01
09-24-2008, 01:49 PM
I do have a problem with a nationalized system. It will be too easy to currupt.

Corruption? I don't think I can recall an incident of NHS corruption at any level. Consider this: the Health Service is nationalised. A government minister is ultimately responsible for it. He doesn't decide who gets what care when, but is an overseer. If the system becomes inefficient, or fails due to managerial inefficiency, you as a voter in a democratic society exercise your democratic right, and remove the government from office. Governments are accountable to the peolpe. Buisnessmen are not.

We are looking at tax burdens ontop of the financial tax burden ontop of...etc...

Another thing you must understand: we are not billed for healthcare once we receive it. All of that is included in taxation. At no time will you be required to 'settle your bill.' Further, health insurance is not requisite. At all. We have a private sector for medical care, which you can pay for if you want to. This sector has no influence over the NHS.

Universal Healthcare has more negative consequences than positive ones.

What are the negative consequences? Specifically? The only major problem with the NHS has been waiting lists, which are being reduced. I can think of many negative consequences for capitalistic provision of healthcare:
1) the wealthy get priority, and by definition the best treatment;
2) the Hippocratic Oath goes out the window: by turning away a sick person because they don't have enough money you are perpetuating harm;
3) hospital management is not accountable to the electorate, or to any elected body, therefore the people have reduced control;
4) a governmental overseer, if open to corruption, can be sidelined by a generous donation from a particular hospital or insurance company to overlook their shortcomings. It has just been said that it happened with credit card companies.

Everyone has a great argument for those with medical conditions, but those are not the people I'm talking about.

And, surely people with medical conditions are those most likely to have an interest in healthcare? A healthy person who cannot be bothered working is unlikely to be spurred into the workforce by the possibility that he may perhaps at some remote time in the future need to go to hospital. Certainly, it is not the biggest concern of any voluntarily unemployed person I have ever met.

Creditcard companies have been regulated for years. Not too long ago sixty-minutes did a piece on creditcard regulation. It turns out that the government overseer is on the side of the creditcard companies.

Many of your points seem to indicate that it is your government that is at fault, not the concept of universal health care.

I want the freedom to give my money freely, and to not have anyone tell me to do so.

I don't imagine your federal government would be best pleased if you informed them that you wouldn't pay your income taxes for that reason...

mimartin
09-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Oh, I get it. People who are able to pay are suffering from higher bills due to people who cannot. No, it is not just the people who cannot afford it that are dragging the system down. It is those that can afford it, but choice not to purchase it. According to the National Coalition of Health Care (the link I provided in a previous post). 29.3% of 18-24 years old do not have health insurance, over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families and 40% of the uninsured population resides in households that earn $50,000 or more annually. In 2006, 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance.

It used to be easy to get around the preexisting condition requirement. You just signed up for your employer’s group plan during the enrollment time each year or you changed jobs. Now however, 1/3 of all U.S. firms did not offer coverage in 2006. In 1987, 70% percent of employers offered employment-based health insurance, in 2006 that number had dropped to 59%. There are now restrictions and exclusions for preexisting condition even on group health insurance that were not in place in the 80s or early 90s.

The availability to purchase health insurance is shrinking.

El Sitherino
09-24-2008, 01:57 PM
The availability to purchase health insurance is shrinking.

I think this is why many of us are supportive of Universal Healthcare. The best way to increase that market is with a plan that lays out guidelines and boundaries.

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 02:04 PM
Astor_Kaine

ou want me to provide proof that I can ask for a second opinion?

Besides, if i'm ill, i'd rather focus on actually getting the treatment I need as opposed to shopping around for a doctor who will conform to the budget I have.

Ah. So you don't want to give your source. Interesting. Because that's about the UHC system. I was also asked to back up my claims about UHC. Even though sources are subject to opinion don't you think you still need proof. See how I didn't think it was needed to give a source for something so easy.

Again, the Government doesn't. A doctor does, after examinations and tests to determine if anything is required.

Read. I said ultimately.

I've never stated otherwise.

Never said you did.

I'm curious why you assume I meant about treating minorities. The Government is responsible for the Department of Health, which oversees the NHS.

Just my opinion on it. Never said you said that either.

Governments tend not to steal research from doctors.

I doubt the government will allow you to make a lot of profit on your new breakthrough. I think they will tell you how much you can have and make.

It is on topic if you can't be bother to research for your argument.

I know it is. That was to show you how people will say things I've said on here are not on topic. Then I have to explain how they are. Then they say they aren't then I again state how they are. See how annoying that is.

Just showing you how it feels on the reciving side.

No, it wasn't an argument. But O'Reilly and 'smart' are rarely used together.

Ah see. I said it before and I knew someone would critisize my source even when I give it. lol. Thanks for proving me right again. Your a fun guy to post and debate with. lol. And that's a compliment.

And you call that a refute for what he said about UHC. And if you do again all sources are subject to everyone's opinion, bias, conclustions, where the source is from, etc. I even explained what people could say to bash my own source and gave why I thought he's credible. See it's all perspective.

So what do you think about a student who is working relatively inconsistent pay (such as lawn jobs, etc.), should they be denied coverage or the benefit of a plan that can get them the help they need should they encounter a fatal rough spot?

No. He should be doing more than lawn jobs. If that's all he chooses to do he's not working hard. I don't want to give money or a handout to a lazy.

Astor
09-24-2008, 02:12 PM
Ah. So you don't want to give your source. Interesting. Because that's about the UHC system. I was also asked to back up my claims about UHC. Even though sources are subject to opinion don't you think you still need proof. See how I didn't think it was needed to give a source for something so easy.

I never said I wouldn't. But then again, I shouldn't have to, considering that the right to a second opinion is one of the basic rights in all healthcare across the world.

Read. I said ultimately.

And the Government still doesn't. See mine and SW01's points about it being 'overseen' by Governments. Very different to controlling.

Ah see. I said it before and I knew someone would critisize my source even when I give it. lol.

That's because O'Reilly is more of a sensationalist than a source.

And you call that a refute for what he said about UHC.

Sorry, but three minutes of scaremongering and whining doesn't even warrant a refute.

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 02:22 PM
I never said I wouldn't. But then again, I shouldn't have to, considering that the right to a second opinion is one of the basic rights in all healthcare across the world.

Duh. Opinion is is exactly what I was giving. And you think you shouldnt have to give a source. My point too about UHC. Yeah that's my right too. lol.

That's because O'Reilly is more of a sensationalist than a source.

In your opinion. In miine he's well researched man. Told you someone would bash me even when I give a source like him. I could call what you called Bill the same thing about Moore. Ender did a while back.

Sorry, but three minutes of scaremongering and whining doesn't even warrant a refute.

Whatever. That's your opinion.

Astor
09-24-2008, 02:32 PM
Opinion is is exactly what I was giving. And you think you shouldnt have to give a source. My point too about UHC. Yeah that's my right too. lol.

You have quite spectacularly missed my point. My point is that the right to a Second Medical Opinion is a basic right for all across the world.

In your opinion. In miine he's well researched man. Told you someone would bash me even when I give a source like him. I could call what you called Bill the same thing about Moore.

Go ahead, I dislike the both of them.

El Sitherino
09-24-2008, 03:08 PM
No. He should be doing more than lawn jobs. If that's all he chooses to do he's not working hard. I don't want to give money or a handout to a lazy.

And just how do you plan to fix the job market? As well, what does the job market have to do with insurance? You're saying because of something outside of people's control, they should be denied proper and decent coverage that they can afford?

Also, I doubt someone doing manual labor for 10 hours a day is a lazy person.

Inyri
09-24-2008, 03:16 PM
Financially, what's the difference between paying taxes into a health care system that benefits everyone and paying premiums for an insurance policy you may potentially never end up making use of? Those premiums you pay to your insurance company are paying for the health care of other people.

What exactly is the difference, realistically? Because it seems to me that one of the biggest qualms is people don't want to be paying for someone else's care. Guess what? You are either way.

mimartin
09-24-2008, 03:26 PM
Financially, what's the difference between paying taxes into a health care system that benefits everyone and paying premiums for an insurance policy you may potentially never end up making use of? None! Other than the fact you make everyone share in the burden with UHC there is no difference.

What exactly is the difference, realistically? Because it seems to me that one of the biggest qualms is people don't want to be paying for someone else's care. Guess what? You are either way.
QFT No. He should be doing more than lawn jobs. If that's all he chooses to do he's not working hard. I don't want to give money or a handout to a lazy.
I don't know if I have every read anything more offensive on this forum. My Grandfather worked hard every day of his life. He was not lazy. I’m by far way more lazy than my grandfather ever was, although I most likely earn in a couple hours what it took him a month to earn. If you have not guessed my Grandfather earned his livelihood by mowing lawns. I did not say that was his occupation, because he was Presbyterian Minister. However, he was also an idealist and would not accept compensation for doing the Lord’s work.

Just because you do not approve of a person's occupation does not mean they are lazy. That is a fact and not just my opinion.

Astor
09-24-2008, 03:31 PM
Financially, what's the difference between paying taxes into a health care system that benefits everyone and paying premiums for an insurance policy you may potentially never end up making use of? Those premiums you pay to your insurance company are paying for the health care of other people.

That's a very good question, one I would be very interested to know the answer to. I've been trying to find a figure for the NHS per taxpayer, and i'll post it as soon as I have it.

As to the actual health systems, a study last year by the Commonwealth Fund reviewed healthcare in six different countries. The UK's NHS came first in both cost, and in quality of care, while the US health system ranked last.

Source (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678)

El Sitherino
09-24-2008, 04:46 PM
I just hardly see any detriment in adding a tax model on an already existent program, therefore forcing it to comply with well regulated standards allowing for proper budgeting of it's expenses. As well provided a universal program for which insurance must comply with, there it extends either a government established insurance program or you get private insurance with better coverage and reasonable rates. The company still makes profit, however they aren't sitting on fat collections with no output into the actual people it's meant for.

Lance Monance
09-24-2008, 05:26 PM
So if you admit that some people will end up without the means to get healthcare despite their hard effort, Sd Nihil, how exactly do you justify denying it them? :confused:

mimartin
09-24-2008, 05:57 PM
Another question would be: Which is cheaper to provide emergency care or preventive care?

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 06:59 PM
Because I believe government has ultimate control over the UHC system. If it can regulate pay, advancement, and what is considered standard of care then that's the government making those decisions.

SW01
09-24-2008, 07:12 PM
And, again, speaking as a resident of a nation with a functioning UHC system, the government does not control the standard of care.

A government department oversees the operation of hospitals. A government minister is held to account by Parliament and the people for the operation of the Health Service. The government minister reports to the Prime Minister, who reports to Parliament and the people.

The government works out how much of the budget should go to the NHS. The NHS trusts decide how it should be implemented. Your doctor decides what level of care you need.

jonathan7
09-24-2008, 08:34 PM
Massive thread clear - basically one individual's posts I felt were of poor quality, frequently obnoxious; and were causing many of the problems in thread, so thought it best to be pruned. I apologise to all those of you whom spent time replying to said individual - but thread wouldn't of made much sense if I left your posts in. - GB j7

Astor
09-25-2008, 02:21 AM
The simple fact is that a UHC is not government controlled. Funded, yes, controlled, no.

A UHC removes a Doctor's concerns about their paychecks, allowing them to focus solely on the needs of the patient, not how much they can pay. UHCs also do not stall or prevent advancement in the system - if anything it creates a more level playing field because everyone is, in effect working for the same employer.

Web Rider
09-25-2008, 03:02 AM
The simple fact is that a UHC is not government controlled. Funded, yes, controlled, no.

A UHC removes a Doctor's concerns about their paychecks, allowing them to focus solely on the needs of the patient, not how much they can pay. UHCs also do not stall or prevent advancement in the system - if anything it creates a more level playing field because everyone is, in effect working for the same employer.

I find some irony in the fact that we lack a UHC, my aunt, who makes a dang lot of money for a doctor(she made more than the president until he raised his income), makes it in the California prison system. Which pretty much has a Universal care program paid through taxes(though, ironically, not through the taxes of the people it serves).

It pays well, has good job security, and judging from the fact that many minor criminals become institutionalized due to better care in prisons than in non-prison life, I would say their quality of care is pretty good.

So, assuming we have a healthcare program at least as good as our massivly bloated prison system, I think we'd have a good deal. We already pay for some 300,000 prisoners who aren't paying for us, seems only right we pay for people who aren't criminals as well.

SD Nihil
10-01-2008, 09:42 PM
I took this week to research UHC and CHC. I've come to the conclusion that both systems have pros and cons to them. I believe national pride makes a difference or can in your decision of which system you prefer. I believe it also depends on what you people feel is best for your own countries.

As an American living in the U.S. I'm content with our CHC. As a person with Goldenhar's syndrome I'm well pleased with the care I've received through our Private health care system.

Below is the link. What it will take you to are a list of articles. Depending on who's writing each person will present what they think are the pros and cons of each system. This is just one link. I believe this shows how much info on both systems is out on the internet. I say make your own decisions. I believe both sides of the coin those that prefer UHC and CHC have the right to give sources, stick with their opinions no matter what, and believe the way they want without fear of retribution.

Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Canadian+and+American+health+care+systems+c ompared+++++++++++++++++++++Systems+compared&ns0=1&fulltext=Search

I also would like to apologize to Jonathan and the other mods. Your right I was wrong in my conduct. With Goldenhar's my sight issues make it difficult to research and read heavily. The source I was given (e-mailed) by my father. Again I apologize. There's so few of the differing opinion on here I think it's my duty to pick up the slack.

Anyway, in the end I believe anyone can speak eloquently enough to discredit, spin, and think the way they want even about facts. So I will not try to convince you. I know what I believe about UHC and CHC. And I have every right to stick to it as you do too.

In the future I would like those to understand though you may disagree with me please do not attack me over my views on poverty and such. I hate no one here. Though you may not like me I like each and everyone of you. I felt I needed to say this. So please let's not make a big deal of it though it doesn't totally fit with the topic.

Yar-El
12-06-2008, 05:07 PM
I know this is bringing up an old topic; however, there is a sense of irony in this update. There is time to talk, and there is a time for action. Obama is procrastinating with the health care subject. He talked big during the election, and now he can't seem to deliver.

Article -
Obama asks nation for health-care reform input (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28081017/)

'We want your exact ideas'
With the transition team contemplating how to deliver on his campaign promise to expand health coverage and lower costs, "what we want to do now is to move to a discussion across the country," Daschle said in a speech yesterday in Denver. "We want your exact ideas."

In addition to the house parties, Obama's transition Web site, Change.gov, is collecting thousands of comments on health-care reform.

By seeking broad public input early in the process, the incoming administration hopes to avoid some of the mistakes of President Clinton's failed initiative 15 years ago, said Daschle, who is also Obama's choice for secretary of health and human services.

"Details kill," he said, recounting that opponents picked apart Clinton's thousand-page bill. "Once we get started, we have to stay focused. Let's finish it, let's not put it down."

Obama is saying, "I don't know how to fix the healthcare issue. We made alot of big promises; however, we don't know how to deliver on them."

Litofsky
12-06-2008, 05:15 PM
I know this is bringing up an old topic; however, there is a sense of irony in this update. There is time to talk, and there is a time for action. Obama is procrastinating with the health care subject. He talked big during the election, and now he can't seem to deliver.
So, he's not even in office yet, and he "can't deliver?" I prefer to look it as Obama's acting before he can even change things yet, and not waiting until the first day to get started. Kudos to him for taking the initiative before even taking office.

Obama is saying, "I don't know how to fix the healthcare issue. We made alot of big promises; however, we don't know how to deliver on them."
In your opinion, that is. In my opinion, he's saying, "Before I officially take office, I'd like the populace's opinion on what your healthcare system should be."

EnderWiggin
12-06-2008, 05:31 PM
I know this is bringing up an old topic; however, there is a sense of irony in this update. There is time to talk, and there is a time for action. Obama is procrastinating with the health care subject. He talked big during the election, and now he can't seem to deliver.

Article -
Obama asks nation for health-care reform input (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28081017/)


Obama is saying, "I don't know how to fix the healthcare issue. We made alot of big promises; however, we don't know how to deliver on them."

Keep your pants on until he gets into office, kay? He's not going to do anything about it as President-elect, so how is asking for information/opinions not a good idea? He's doing something, which is more than nothing, which means he's on the road to delivery.

_EW_

Yar-El
12-06-2008, 05:33 PM
So, he's not even in office yet, and he "can't deliver?" I prefer to look it as Obama's acting before he can even change things yet, and not waiting until the first day to get started. Kudos to him for taking the initiative before even taking office.
Don't you find that to be a problem? He made a big promise that helped get him elected; however, his plan to reform healthcare seems to have hit a wall.

So, he's not even in office yet, and he "can't deliver?" I prefer to look it as Obama's acting before he can even change things yet, and not waiting until the first day to get started. Kudos to him for taking the initiative before even taking office.
He is acting, and he is failing. What else does he need to do?

In your opinion, that is. In my opinion, he's saying, "Before I officially take office, I'd like the populace's opinion on what your healthcare system should be."
Obama was the guy with a plan, right? Why does he need our input if he was voted into office based upon people believing in his plan? I thought he had all the answers for creating a Universal Healthcare system?

EnderWiggin
12-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Don't you find that to be a problem? He made a big promise that helped get him elected; however, his plan to reform healthcare seems to have hit a wall.


He is acting, and he is failing. What else does he need to do?


His starting early is a problem? What?

And he's not failing yet, he can't do anything anyway as President-elect.

Obama was the guy with a plan, right? Why does he need our imput if he was voted into office based upon people believing in his plan?
Input. And more information is never a bad thing.


"In order for us to reform our health care system, we must first begin reforming how government communicates with the American people," Obama said in a statement yesterday.

Tactic aims to circumvent special interests that quashed previous efforts.

By seeking broad public input early in the process, the incoming administration hopes to avoid some of the mistakes of President Clinton's failed initiative 15 years ago, said Daschle
_EW_

Litofsky
12-06-2008, 05:39 PM
Don't you find that to be a problem? He made a big promise that helped get him elected; however, his plan to reform healthcare seems to have hit a wall.
Yes, that "wall," as you put it is him not being in office yet! The way I see it, he's moving to take action before he's even the President. And for what? You're bashing him because of an ostensible 'lack of ideas?' How do you know this for sure, Yar? Do tell.

He is acting, and he is failing. What else does he need to do?
I'll repeat myself: Barack Obama is not yet President. Abiding by the law, he cannot act! How is he failing, Yar?

Obama was the guy with a plan, right? Why does he need our input if he was voted into office based upon people believing in his plan? I thought he had all the answers for creating a Universal Healthcare system?
First off, this was only one of his promises that Obama proposed. Second, he promised to establish a Universal Healthcare System, and, so far as I know, never gave any specifics. What he's doing now is asking for opinions on how it should be implemented.

Q
12-06-2008, 05:40 PM
Yes, I agree that we should wait until he's in office and ultimately fails to deliver on all of the wondrous miracles that he's promised to perform before we criticize him.

Yar-El is wise enough to make an early reservation in the "I told you so" section of the peanut gallery, however.

Yar-El
12-06-2008, 05:41 PM
Yes, that "wall," as you put it is him not being in office yet! The way I see it, he's moving to take action before he's even the President. And for what? You're bashing him because of an ostensible 'lack of ideas?' How do you know this for sure, Yar? Do tell.

I'll repeat myself: Barack Obama is not yet President. Abiding by the law, he cannot act! How is he failing, Yar?
Leaders are not held back by walls. I thought he was a leader. People must be wrong.

EnderWiggin
12-06-2008, 05:43 PM
Leaders are not held back by walls. I thought he was a leader. People must be wrong.

Are you serious? Do you even read what we write? He's not the president and he can't do anything more than what he's doing.

_EW_

Litofsky
12-06-2008, 05:45 PM
Leaders are not held back by walls. I thought he was a leader. People must be wrong.

Yar, I am thoroughly confused. You say that he should not be held back by walls, and yet, what about the law? It prevents him from taking any Presidential actions until he is inaugurated.

Why are you jumping on every sentence to attack him? Are you attempting to convince us that Obama is failing? Trust me, many of us have our opinions on Obama already, and attempting to throw useless insults at him doesn't do anyone here justice.

Yar-El
12-06-2008, 05:47 PM
Yar, I am thoroughly confused. You say that he should not be held back by walls, and yet, what about the law? It prevents him from taking any Presidential actions until he is inaugurated.

Why are you jumping on every sentence to attack him? Are you attempting to convince us that Obama is failing? Trust me, many of us have our opinions on Obama already, and attempting to throw useless insults at him doesn't do anyone here justice. Leaders can create change before they are in power. You don't need to be president to make such changes. Its an excuse.

Litofsky
12-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Leaders can create change before they are in power. You don't need to be president to make such changes. Its an excuse.

We are referring to actually creating a Universal Healthcare System, are we not? Continuing with that, it is impossible for Obama to sign into existence such a System, as he is not yet President! The current Senate does not have the power to push it through themselves if Bush vetoes (the) bill, and, therefore, only once Obama has been inaugurated can the change be enacted.

Q
12-06-2008, 05:51 PM
Yar, I'll have to agree with the HiveMind in that you're being a bit premature here. Just wait until he's in office. You'll have plenty of ammunition to spew forth with ruthless abandon then; trust me. ;)

Yar-El
12-06-2008, 05:53 PM
Yar, I have to agree with the HiveMind that you're being a bit premature here. Just wait until he's in office. You'll have plenty of ammunition to spew forth with ruthless abandon then, trust me. ;)
Oky, I will be patient. :)

jonathan7
12-06-2008, 06:29 PM
HiveMind

Please define what you mean by this?

jrrtoken
12-06-2008, 06:35 PM
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7514/02tallasmeobamaku0.jpg

Q
12-06-2008, 06:45 PM
HiveMind
Please define what you mean by this?
Put simply, it is my honest interpretation of the behaviors exhibited by the vast majority of the posters here. It was not meant to offend.

Palpatine_dc
12-07-2008, 08:37 AM
I have a question for those who are against UHC: Do you have a private health insurance?