PDA

View Full Version : Universal Health Care?



Caledonian
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 10:38 AM
I'm curious as to what members here in other countries specifically in Canada, Austrailia, and all of Europe think of the current debate within the United States about universal healthcare or the position to move against it.

Is there anybody outside of the United States that have followed our situation closely that have a opinion on our health care system as a observer?

According to our capitalist brethren within our nation of the United States all of our healthcare should be expensive and ought to be controlled explicitly by medical corporate insurance companies.

According to them also there is indeed a price on human life in general.

[This should make for some interesting conversation.]

Caledonian
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 05:37 PM
Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sector. Health insurance is primarily provided by the private sector, with the exception of programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million Americans—16.7% of the population—were uninsured in 2009.[1] More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world,[2][3] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[3] Despite the fact that not all people in America are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care and utilization today.[4][5] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.[6] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[7]

Active debate about health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, choice, value, and quality. Some have argued that the system does not deliver equivalent value for the money spent. The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][8] The United States life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9][10][11]

Life expectancy in the USA is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th).[12][13] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[14][15] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[16] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[17]According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the USA is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance).[18][19] The same Institute of Medicine report notes that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."[18] while a 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found a much higher figure of more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[20][21] More broadly, the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care was estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[22]



The uninsured

Main article: Uninsured in the United States
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment. This problem has become a source of considerable political controversy on a national level.

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. This number was down slightly from the previous year, with nearly 3 million more people receiving government coverage and a slightly lower percentage covered under private plans than the year previous.[53] Other studies have placed the number of uninsured in the years 2007–2008 as high as 86.7 million, about 29% of the US population.[81][82]

Among the uninsured population, the Census Bureau says, nearly 37 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. About 38% of the uninsured live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more.[53] According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million of the uninsured are legal U.S citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.[53] Nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[83] Extending coverage to all who are eligible remains a fiscal challenge.[84]

A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001.[85] The study noted that this amount per capita was half what the average insured person received. The study found that various levels of government finance most uncompensated care, spending about $30.6 billion on payments and programs to serve the uninsured and covering as much as 80–85% of uncompensated care costs through grants and other direct payments, tax appropriations, and Medicare and Medicaid payment add-ons. Most of this money comes from the federal government, followed by state and local tax appropriations for hospitals. Another study by the same authors in the same year estimated the additional annual cost of covering the uninsured (in 2001 dollars) at $34 billion (for public coverage) and $69 billion (for private coverage). These estimates represent an increase in total health care spending of 3–6% and would raise health care’s share of GDP by less than one percentage point, the study concluded.[86] Another study published in the same journal in 2004 estimated that the value of health forgone each year because of uninsurance was $65–$130 billion and concluded that this figure constituted "a lower-bound estimate of economic losses resulting from the present level of uninsurance nationally."[87]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Paradigm
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 06:44 PM
First, health care and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance is a monthly premium you pay into a pool that is a savings towards future health cost. Health care itself is the service of seeing a physician. Both are services provided by individuals. No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.

Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything. I don't have insurance and I could purchase it. A lot of people who are middle class don't have insurance. You do not need it. It doesn't mean I can't get health care if I needed it.

There's so much red-tape and bureaucracy a doctor can't simply treat you, and then pay. Half their time is soaked up in paper work they must comply with.

A Free-Market Guide to Healthcare (http://mises.org/daily/3737) - Dozens upon dozens of articles and other media on the healthcare issue.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." - F. A. Hayek

Loyalist
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 06:51 PM
You do not want universal health care in the United States. We have had that program rammed down out throats since the mid-20th century when Tommmy Douglas, a Scottish immigrant socialist politician, successfully lobbied for its implementation. Do not be fooled by the praise and nonsensical statistics which the leftist and progressive lobbies used to force the passage of Obamacare; the medical system in Canada, Europe, and wherever else socialized medicine is practiced is vastly inferior to the current system in the United States.

In Canada, it is next to impossible to find a GP/family physician, and those that do are usually placed with an Indian or African immigrant with a medical degree from their nation of origin. The best medical school graduates leave for the US, as the salary cap in countries with universal health care creates a medical brain drain. Hospital wait times are obscene, and so are waits for surgery, cancer treatment, etc. In regard to the latter, cancer patients are 16% more likely to die in Canada than in the US. On a practical level, the system is extremely expensive, and necessitates vastly inflated tax levels. I would prefer to have those taxes eliminated, and in turn I could use the savings to purchase (cheaper) private insurance and receive better care.

The interesting thing is that, despite widespread criticism of, and opponents to, universal health care in Canada, there is almost no debate on the matter. Critics of socialized medicine are derided as "un-Canadian" in the media, and no politician would dare suggest privatization, for it would surely be political suicide. That said, there is a very quiet trend towards accomodating a parallel private system to slowly develop, and I firmly believe that, if the stranglehold of the liberal media and academia could be broken, statistics would demonstrate the insanity of universal health care, and the aforementioned private sector would flourish in its place.

I noticed that, during the passage of Obamacare, its proponents frequently cited suspicious numbers of uninsured individuals to support the bill. What was never mentioned was the fact that the uninsured were mostly comprised of illegal immigrants and those who opted not to purchase insurance, as is their Constitutional right (Congress can tax, but cannot compel the purchase of commodities; the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by specifying that Obamacare is not a tax).

Paradigm
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 07:15 PM
I was never explained the contradiction of having insurance if the government was to provide tax-payer funded low quality healthcare that would be "no cost" to the consumer.

Iconoclast
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 07:41 PM
Once upon a time you could go see a doctor and pay the entirety of the bill out of pocket for a reasonable sum. Once someone else starts to pay your bill though, perverse incentives are created. No longer do you care about the necessity or the value of the care you are being provided when some other chump is footing the bill.

Caledonian
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 07:50 PM
First, health care and health insurance are two different things. Health insurance is a monthly premium you pay into a pool that is a savings towards future health cost. Health care itself is the service of seeing a physician. Both are services provided by individuals. No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.

Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything. I don't have insurance and I could purchase it. A lot of people who are middle class don't have insurance. You do not need it. It doesn't mean I can't get health care if I needed it.

There's so much red-tape and bureaucracy a doctor can't simply treat you, and then pay. Half their time is soaked up in paper work they must comply with.

A Free-Market Guide to Healthcare (http://mises.org/daily/3737) - Dozens upon dozens of articles and other media on the healthcare issue.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion." - F. A. Hayek

Under capitalism health care is dominated by health insurance companies because what you have is the complete privatization of all of the health care system.


No one has the right to have someone else service them or provide any type of service.
So what your saying is that nobody has a right to health care.


Secondly, the high cost are directly involved with government intervention and monopolies by various companies (government granted monopolies I must add). Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

Actually that's funny considering that is a consequence of private capitalist enterprise and not a form of public health care at all......



Publicly funded health care is a form of health care financing designed to meet the cost of all or most health care needs from a publicly managed fund. Usually this is under some form of democratic accountability, the right of access to which are set down in rules applying to the whole population contributing to the fund or receiving benefits from it. The fund may be a not-for-profit trust which pays out for health care according to common rules established by the members or by some other democratic form. In some countries the fund is controlled directly by the government or by an agency of the government for the benefit of the entire population. This distinguishes it from other forms of private medical insurance, the rights of access to which are subject to contractual obligations between an insurer (or his sponsor) and an insurance company which seeks to make a profit by managing the flow of funds between funders and providers of health care services.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_health_care


Having socialized medicine would put the few corporations exactly where they want to be, to be the sole providers of pharmaceuticals granted by the State.

Why would they want to do that?

Aren't corporations against public socialization of many things being the good private capitalists that they are?

Besides by privatizing all fields of health care along with having wide influences within the government those same medical insurance corporations already enjoy their positions quite well under a capitalist private based system in regards to having complete control in how health care is monetarily provided.


Also, being without insurance doesn't mean anything.

Tell that to the many millions of people uninsured who find themselves in bankruptcy courts and thousands of dollars in debt because they can't afford to make medical payments.

Even having medical insurance is no guarantee to help either because the medical insurance companies only pay so much where it is still expensive on the average citizen who still has to largely pay out of pocket even with having insurance with what insurance companies refuse to pay for.

What's the reason why? The business of medical care is grossly expensive to which medical corporations along with insurance companies refuse to lower their prices when it concerns giving care to people.

Ămeric
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 08:29 PM
According to our capitalist brethren within our nation of the United States all of our healthcare should be expensive and ought to be controlled explicitly by medical corporate insurance companies.Who wants expensive healthcare? The fact that healthcare is expensive is due to A; tort law & malpractice lawsuits, B; administrative costs & paperwork to guard against malpractice lawsuits, C; administrative costs to comply with federal regulations & various medical programs, D; Medicare & Medicaid, which consume a majority of healthcare in America, due to the elderly consuming the majority of healthcare services & virtually all of them being enrolled in Medicare. Medicare has driven up healthcare more then any other program. It is based on the Canadian system but is just for 65+. E; The poor & illegal immigrants who use medicare services & do not pay, causing hospitals to charge insured patients/customers higher prices for services. F; the lack of competition among health insurance providers, interstate competition is forbidden.


According to them also there is indeed a price on human life in general.
As there should be. Does it make sense to spend $100,000+ on bypass surgery for a 75> man or woman, just so they can live a few years longer, during which time they will consume more medical services. There is a fine line between saving someone's life & extending their death.

Cuba is a workers paradise, free healthcare for all. Yet Mexicans & Haitians do not risk their lives to get to Cuba, though in the case of Haitians it would be safer & easier then getting to Florida. It would seem most poor thirdwolrders would rather get free healthcare at the emergency room of the local hospital in America. Of course the free healthcare in Cuba is low quality but it is absolutely free to all Cubans!:thumbup

The truth is that many, many people already have free healthcare in America, which is why those of us who have to pay for it pay such a high price for healthcare.

Paradigm
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 08:37 PM
Under capitalism health care is dominated by health insurance companies because what you have is the complete privatization of all of the health care system.

The state regulates and intervenes in about 85% of the health care industry. What's so private about any of that?


So what your saying is that nobody has a right to health care.

Yes, no one has the right to a product or service. No one has the right or privilege to receive service or work from another individual by coercion. No one has the "right" to see a doctor just as no one has the "right" to see a mechanic.

In libertarian theory and according to the NAP you would have a right to something as in your movement towards pursuing said service or product should not be restricted by force. For example, we have a right to bear arms, and this is to keep the government from restricting people from obtaining a product, but we don't have a right to bear arms in the sense that everyone is entitled a gun by coercion by the State.

I believe in negative rights compared to positive rights. That we have rights from things instead of to things.

You may say "I have a right to health care", but that depends on the individual who all of the sudden becomes an indentured servant because of his skill or profession. Is he forced to see you? Does he not have a right to serve or not to serve, does he not have a right to decide?


Actually that's funny considering that is a consequence of private capitalist enterprise and not a form of public health care at all......

Yeah, like the government isn't involved with health care already.



Why would they want to do that?

Aren't corporations against public socialization of many things being the good private capitalists that they are?

As I have explained many times, corporatist are not capitalist. They are using the State to reach a profit and exclude competition. As you've seen from the post of more capitalist minded people, they are for competition, not to restrict it. They are for freedom of choice. It's sad that you can't see the many people in Congress lobbying for laws in favor of the corporations they represent.


Besides by privatizing all fields of health care along with having wide influences within the government those same medical insurance corporations already enjoy their positions quite well under a capitalist private based system in regards to having complete control in how health care is monetarily provided.

Actually, no, because a lot of competition would spring up. If there are no rules or regulations that keeps their power in place, and they happen to be gone, and there's no objection to free competition, and plus they wouldn't have to raise cost to comply with government fees and rules, competition would freely spring up (nothings holding them back) and those companies would have to lower prices and compete fairly on the market. You should look more into the health care industry and see how much of it is not free. Obamacare or Universal Healthcare is like putting gasoline on the fire.


Tell that to the many millions of people uninsured who find themselves in bankruptcy courts and thousands of dollars in debt because they can't afford to make medical payments.

Go to a hospital or clinic (like Patient First) in your town and ask a doctor why costs are so high, and why waiting is so long. Ask why so much paperwork must be filled and and who's deciding what must be complied with. Better yet, ask Congressman Ron Paul who's a certified doctor. He'll tell you first hand what's wrong with what we have.


Even having medical insurance is no guarantee to help either because the medical insurance companies only pay so much where it is still expensive on the average citizen who still has to largely pay out of pocket even with having insurance with what insurance companies refuse to pay for.

With everyone I know that has insurance that's not the case. There is a good price difference in having insurance and not depending on what you are getting. With my female friends who do and don't have health insurance there's easily a 30 dollar price difference in their birth control, that's a lot of money.


What's the reason why? The business of medical care is grossly expensive to which medical corporations along with insurance companies refuse to lower their prices when it concerns giving care to people.

They don't refuse to lower prices, they can't.

Paradigm
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Congressman Ron Paul on the subject:

Before the US House of Representatives, September 23, 2009


Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

Points to consider:

1. No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

2. If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.

3. Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.

4. More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.

5. Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.

6. First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.

7. The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.

8. Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.

9. The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.

10. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.

11. Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.

12. Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.

13. The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.

14. The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.

Early on, medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.

15. Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.

16. There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician's income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17. We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.

From More Government Won't Help (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul585.html).

Also, Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul246.html), Healthcare Reform Is Economic Malpractice (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul606.html), Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul566.html), Healthcare Is a Good Not a Right (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul557.html), and Ron Paul Introduces Three New Bills Designed To Restore Free Speech To Health (http://www.naturalnews.com/026810_health_free_speech_Ron_Paul.html) . I'm sure if you do a Google search or look on the Mises site you'll find dozens of articles by Ron Paul on this, as well as the link I posted in my first post on this thread that's already to dozens of articles you probably won't read.

RoyBatty
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 10:44 PM
Who wants expensive healthcare? The fact that healthcare is expensive is due to A; tort law & malpractice lawsuits, B; administrative costs & paperwork to guard against malpractice lawsuits, C; administrative costs to comply with federal regulations & various medical programs, D; Medicare & Medicaid, which consume a majority of healthcare in America


and I'll add wages / salaries gone mad



As there should be. Does it make sense to spend $100,000+ on bypass surgery for a 75> man or woman, just so they can live a few years longer, during which time they will consume more medical services. There is a fine line between saving someone's life & extending their death.


Very good point, there are too many of these unsavoury practices aimed at cashing in going on in the medical industry. Keeping people alive at all costs, particularly when their remainder quality of life is going to be substandard, is immoral imo.



Cuba is a workers paradise, free healthcare for all. Yet Mexicans & Haitians do not risk their lives to get to Cuba, though in the case of Haitians it would be safer & easier then getting to Florida. It would seem most poor thirdwolrders would rather get free healthcare at the emergency room of the local hospital in America. Of course the free healthcare in Cuba is low quality but it is absolutely free to all Cubans!:thumbup


I don't believe that healthcare in Cuba is necessarily "low quality" but fair enough, it's not necessarily going to be the best that money can buy either since there are economic realities which determine what level of care can be provided.

Another factor to keep in mind when people jump on their floats before sailing off to the Promised Land is that they're not doing it primarily to get "free or affordable healthcare". Healthcare is not the primary motivator for them. Why would it be? Healthcare is something most of us worry about if and when we need it and since those times are few and far between for most of us it's not going to be at the top of our list of priorities.

Capital gains and the prospects of brighter and easier futures are the primary motivators for immigrants.

SpearBrave
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:18 PM
According to our capitalist brethren within our nation of the United States all of our healthcare should be expensive and ought to be controlled explicitly by medical corporate insurance companies.


Does anybody else find this statement about capitalist wanting something to be expensive a bit hypocritical.;)

I thought capitalist want things like services cheap so they can grow their capital to oppress more lowly workers.[sarcasm]

When you are done ranting for government mandated health insurance, you will receive a free obama bumper sticker. I'm sure you will sleep better knowing big brother has control of yet another aspect of your personal life.:P

Keep in mind the U.S. government could not even run a whore house they seized for tax reasons, they even failed at selling sex and booze.:-O

Caledonian
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Does anybody else find this statement about capitalist wanting something to be expensive a bit hypocritical.;)

I thought capitalist want things like services cheap so they can grow their capital to oppress more lowly workers.[sarcasm]

When you are done ranting for government mandated health insurance, you will receive a free obama bumper sticker. I'm sure you will sleep better knowing big brother has control of yet another aspect of your personal life.:P

Keep in mind the U.S. government could not even run a whore house they seized for tax reasons, they even failed at selling sex and booze.:-O

You act like president Obongo came up with the concept of public healthcare himself when actually the idea of it is much older where he just latched onto the ideas of others for purely political reasons.

To be fair I didn't really like his public healthcare proposals because I didn't believe they went far enough in reforming medical care for people within this country.


Does anybody else find this statement about capitalist wanting something to be expensive a bit hypocritical.;)

I thought capitalist want things like services cheap so they can grow their capital to oppress more lowly workers.[sarcasm]

If they can raise the price of somthing by charging extra for any services by reaping in the large profits time and time again large businesses have shown that they will.

Likewise if they can find ways of saving money by reaping in large profits for themselves by cutting the wages of hired workers within business along with by importing foreign workers from other nations that will work for much less they do that as well.

Both are instances of international free market capitalism that solely revolves around profit margins and capital liquidity.


I'm sure you will sleep better knowing big brother has control of yet another aspect of your personal life.
People like yourself seem to think that all of society and a nation can become privatized thinking that it will somehow lead to some sort of social equilibrium yet everytime when all of existence becomes privatized we see the complete opposite in total failure.

If anything I believe a large portion of society needs to become socially and collectively publicized for the improvement of nations by getting ourselves away from the mismanagement of total privatization.

[Privatization is alright to a point in which obviously some things need to be privatized but too much privatization can become dangerous and disasterous with steep consequences.]

If that means the increase of powers and strengths of a national statist intervening government to fix specific details of society so be it.

Ămeric
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:24 PM
I don't believe that healthcare in Cuba is necessarily "low quality" but fair enough, it's not necessarily going to be the best that money can buy either since there are economic realities which determine what level of care can be provided.In a thread on healthcare, here or at another forum, Loyalist relayed his grandmother's (who winters in Cuba) experience at a Cuban medical clinic, it was dirty & low quality. And this was for a foreigner who could pay in a hard currency.


Another factor to keep in mind when people jump on their floats before sailing off to the Promised Land is that they're not doing it primarily to get "free or affordable healthcare". Healthcare is not the primary motivator for them. Why would it be? Healthcare is something most of us worry about if and when we need it and since those times are few and far between for most of us it's not going to be at the top of our list of priorities.

Capital gains and the prospects of brighter and easier futures are the primary motivators for immigrants.

Cuba is held up as a shining example of a "workers paradise" by certain prominent lefties, like Michael Moore, Ted Turner & most of the Congressional Black Caucus. Yet workers are not beating down the gates to get into Cuba. That is because the quality of "free healthcare for all" and of the "free housing" is relatively low. All of the countries of the West experiencing an onslaught of immigration from the third world have welfare systems that immigrants are not afraid to exploit. Free healthcare is just part of it, there is ADC (Aid to Dependent Children), Medicaid (free healthcare for the poor), food stamps (actually it is now a debit card instead of paper coupons), section 8 housing - these benefits are eligible to illegals vias their anchor babies. This is just in America, apparently the welfare state in Europe is more generous, this is why Muslims can afford to have so many children, thanks to the childless taxpaying Europeans.

The poor in America are better off, materially, then the typical Cuban with free healthcare & free housing. The poor American has better healthcare then a Cuban, even if they have no health insurance & are not enrolled in Medicaid. Emergency rooms do not turn away the poor or uninsured & they do not even bother trying to collect from illegal aliens who are living under radar, the cost is just written off as a loss.

RoyBatty
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:30 PM
Does anybody else find this statement about capitalist wanting something to be expensive a bit hypocritical.;)

I thought capitalist want things like services cheap so they can grow their capital to oppress more lowly workers.[sarcasm]

I suspect that our comrade is referring mostly to monopoly or near-monopoly capitalists who aim to extract maximum dollar from the long suffering public in exchange for any given service. The reason they can extract maximum dollar is that conditions become unfavourable for competitors or real competition to emerge.

My belief is that many of these pro-capitalism / anti-capitalism arguments hinge on somewhat loose definitions of what is actually meant by "capitalism".

I don't think that many people are truly anti-capitalist in the sense that they hate "free enterprise", "competition", "earning profits" etc. What they're against is capitalist monopolies being formed which squeeze the life out of the smaller operators.

Unfortunately this is what happens in capitalist systems which are not regulated properly in order to foster competition and to offer value to the customer. This is one reason why countries such as the US has strict "anti-trust" laws which are supposed to protect the marketplace from these monopolies forming.

Imo the laws have not been a universal success as Corporations (aided and abetted by corrupt elements in Government) have found and are exploiting loopholes in order to establish monopolies and near monopolies and cartels. (Cartels being where a handful of mega capitalists agree to collude and cooperate in order to freeze the rest out).

RoyBatty
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:45 PM
In a thread on healthcare, here or at another forum, Loyalist relayed his grandmother's (who winters in Cuba) experience at a Cuban medical clinic, it was dirty & low quality. And this was for a foreigner who could pay in a hard currency.


Sure, it's not going to be comparable to a First World environment but at the end of the day the main thing is that they keep one alive and more or less functional.



Cuba is held up as a shining example of a "workers paradise" by certain prominent lefties, like Michael Moore, Ted Turner & most of the Congressional Black Caucus.


Haha... it's a poor country. It is what it is. Paradise for some = hell for others. It depends what one wants out of life. It's certainly not comparable to the US in terms of "quality of life" measured in material terms.



Yet workers are not beating down the gates to get into Cuba. That is because the quality of "free healthcare for all" and of the "free housing" is relatively low. All of the countries of the West experiencing an onslaught of immigration from the third world have welfare systems that immigrants are not afraid to exploit. Free healthcare is just part of it, there is ADC (Aid to Dependent Children), Medicaid (free healthcare for the poor), food stamps (actually it is now a debit card instead of paper coupons), section 8 housing - these benefits are eligible to illegals vias their anchor babies.


Most people are motivated by material gain, in other words, money. One could philosophise and debate whether this is really the most sensible measure of "getting ahead in life" etc but given the choice most will go straight for the money. That puts Cuba out of contention.



This is just in America, apparently the welfare state in Europe is more generous, this is why Muslims can afford to have so many children, thanks to the childless taxpaying Europeans.


ZOG and their scummy European collaborators have rigged the system pretty handily. They've set up the system wherein they've helped to expand the aboriginal welfare parasite class. They then gave the jobs of these aboriginal parasites to 3d world immigrants who do work but who also milk the benefits system. In additional to this, they are also importing masses of 3d world immigrants who, like the aboriginal parasites, do no work but receive massive subsidies courtesy of the local taxpayer.

The Europeans who do work typically do not qualify for the same level of subsidies as the immigrants (working and non-working). Hence they cannot afford the large families, afford housing large enough for larger families etc.




The poor in America are better off, materially, then the typical Cuban with free healthcare & free housing. The poor American has better healthcare then a Cuban, even if they have no health insurance & are not enrolled in Medicaid. Emergency rooms do not turn away the poor or uninsured & they do not even bother trying to collect from illegal aliens who are living under radar, the cost is just written off as a loss.

There's more $$ going around in the US so even the US poor would in material terms be better off than the Cubans. Due to economies of scale, favourable trade arrangements etc US prices for consumer goods and food are pretty good.

One cannot really compare the standard of living in Cuba vs the standard of living in the US. It's apples vs oranges.

In terms of the distribution of wealth, services etc Cuba has imo got a fairer (more equal) society but it's hardly perfect or necessarily a "Paradise" as some would describe it. Everywhere / Every system has their pros and cons.

SpearBrave
Saturday, December 25th, 2010, 11:51 PM
You act like president Obongo came up with the concept of public healthcare himself when actually the idea of it is much older where he just latched onto the ideas of others for purely political reasons.


Of course I know that these leftist ideas have been around for a very long time, I think they started with FDR. However since the great Waschbńr
has made it his primary agenda he owns it and supports it.


To be fair I didn't really like his public healthcare proposals because I didn't believe they went far enough in reforming medical care for people within this country.

These new proposals have nothing to do with health care, they have everything to do with health insurance and more money for torte lawyers.;)


If they can raise the price of somthing by charging extra for any services by reaping in the large profits time and time again large businesses have show that they will.


This is where you are wrong, first off it is easier to make $1 a hundred times a day than it is to make $100 once a day. So if you have 300,000,000 people it would be very hard to make a sale on higher priced goods and services. Unless of course it is a forced sale by the government.;)


People like yourself seem to think that all of society and a nation can become privatized thinking that it will somehow lead to some sort of social equilibrium yet everytime when all of existence becomes privatized we see the complete opposite in total failure.

If anything I believe a large portion of society needs to become socially and collectively publicized for the improvement of nations.

If that means the increase of powers and strength of a national statist intervening government so be it.

Well to be perfectly honest I know that a any government that is big enough to give you everything you want they are also big enough to take it away. That includes your cultural and racial identity.

I know government is necessary in a very limited form, read my profile before you tell me what I believe and what I don't.;)

Ămeric
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 12:15 AM
Haha... it's a poor country. It is what it is. Paradise for some = hell for others. It depends what one wants out of life. It's certainly not comparable to the US in terms of "quality of life" measured in material terms.

There's more $$ going around in the US so even the US poor would in material terms be better off than the Cubans. Due to economies of scale, favourable trade arrangements etc US prices for consumer goods and food are pretty good.

One cannot really compare the standard of living in Cuba vs the standard of living in the US. It's apples vs oranges.

In terms of the distribution of wealth, services etc Cuba has imo got a fairer (more equal) society but it's hardly perfect or necessarily a "Paradise" as some would describe it. Everywhere / Every system has their pros and cons.

Cuba was one of the wealthier countries in the Western Hemisphere in 1958, the typical Cuban was better off then the average Mexican or Brazilian. Yes there was a desparity of wealth. But in creating a workers paradise Cuba did not obtain an equal distribution of wealth but of poverty. Personal greed is what creates wealth, if it is forbidden everyone is poor.

SpearBrave
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:07 AM
Imo the laws have not been a universal success as Corporations (aided and abetted by corrupt elements in Government) have found and are exploiting loopholes in order to establish monopolies and near monopolies and cartels. (Cartels being where a handful of mega capitalists agree to collude and cooperate in order to freeze the rest out).


This is one of the reasons why I believe in a very small limited government of the people that can be controlled by the people.

Most of what I have read about obamacare is that is nothing more than a way to increase the size of a ever more corrupt federal government. I often believe we have created artificial life and it is called big federal government. It has all the aspects of a life form it grows, feeds, reproduces, and sometime it must die.

Caledonian
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 01:07 AM
Cuba was one of the wealthier countries in the Western Hemisphere in 1958, the typical Cuban was better off then the average Mexican or Brazilian. Yes there was a desparity of wealth. But in creating a workers paradise Cuba did not obtain an equal distribution of wealth but of poverty. Personal greed is what creates wealth, if it is forbidden everyone is poor.

To some level yes personal greed and striving does create wealth but too much of it can also destroy wealth as well leading to total chaos.

There has to be a balance and unfortunately in the history of the world no such balance has ever been formalized or implemented leaving one to wonder if it ever will be.

However I don't believe that pessimism is enough to not strive for balance.

RoyBatty
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 07:17 AM
Cuba was one of the wealthier countries in the Western Hemisphere in 1958, the typical Cuban was better off then the average Mexican or Brazilian. Yes there was a desparity of wealth. But in creating a workers paradise Cuba did not obtain an equal distribution of wealth but of poverty.


Yes sir it was a wealthier country but it didn't become poorer solely because of economic mismanagement by the leaders of the People's Revolution. Economic sabotage and sanctions against it by the US played a major role as well. Keep in mind that the US doesn't only boycott trade with countries such as Cuba. It goes to great lengths behind the scenes to threaten, blackmail and prevent other countries from trading with and investing in Cuba as well (with mixed but still influential results of course).

I'd have to read up a bit to understand their economic situation better but those would be some of the reasons.


Personal greed is what creates wealth

Not necessarily. Few Kuwaitis do a shred of work yet the country is wealthy and the citizens have a lot of things paid for them. Socialist countries like Sweden are not poor by any means despite extremely high levels of taxation for the rich.

Wealth creation depends on a number of factors other than personal greed only.

Ămeric
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Yes sir it was a wealthier country but it didn't become poorer solely because of economic mismanagement by the leaders of the People's Revolution. Economic sabotage and sanctions against it by the US played a major role as well. Keep in mind that the US doesn't only boycott trade with countries such as Cuba. It goes to great lengths behind the scenes to threaten, blackmail and prevent other countries from trading with and investing in Cuba as well (with mixed but still influential results of course).

I'd have to read up a bit to understand their economic situation better but those would be some of the reasons.Other countries do trade with Cuba - Canada for example - , but except sugar & tobacco they have little to barter with. The main problen is they don't produce anything anymore.




Not necessarily. Few Kuwaitis do a shred of work yet the country is wealthy and the citizens have a lot of things paid for them. O-I-L!

Without it those Persian Gulf sheikdoms would be poorer then Cuba.


Socialist countries like Sweden are not poor by any means despite extremely high levels of taxation for the rich.

Sweden is not as extreme marxist as Cuba is or the Soviet Union was. But some of the wealthier Swedes have moved themselves, or their assets, offshore. But Sweden, & all the other liberal democracy welfare states, are going broke paying for benefits that are considered birthrights after decades of generous welfare spending. The recent riots in Britain & France have been over the retrenchment of public spending on "free stuff". The "tax the rich" does not work longterm because rhe rich only have so much money that can be taken & spent. Social Democracies have survived as long as the have by taxing the wages of the workers (income tax & pension/heath insurance taxes on wages) to support non-workers. Private sector workers are taxed to support public sector workers. Eventually you ran out of people to tax to support the state & all those enrolled in the entitlement classes.

A note on social taxes on wages (referred to as FICA in the US): Even though part is contributed by the employer (50% in the US), in reality the entire burden fails on the worker. The employer contribution (along with any other benefits paid or partly paid for by the employer) is factored in when determining employee compensation. The private sector workers are the people paying for the welfare state.

For the wealthy progressive taxation means they concentrate on wealth preservation, instead of wealth creation. That is why there are still very wealthy people in social democracies, though much of what they save in taxes is spent on CPAs & tax attorneys. The tax codes of all nations with progressive income taxes contain special tax rates for special sectors of the economy, so some industries can thrive in a progressive tax structure but these actual amount to subsidies. Like the housing/real estate market in America, look how that turned out.

Ardito
Wednesday, January 12th, 2011, 09:58 PM
I am opposed to universal healthcare in the context of the modern world, because what it means is increased control of our lives by our secular, corrupt governments and the supporting of degenerate individuals.

However, in a more sane context, it seems reasonable to provide healthcare to every subject of the realm who remains in good standing with the law.

ChaosLord
Thursday, January 13th, 2011, 05:29 AM
I'm opposed to universal healthcare due to the fact that in reality it's not there to benefit us. It's there to benefit the gov't and its special interests. A means of controlling and regulating medical operations, research and development, and how we are to live our lives. What is under the radar to most people is that when you put the gov't into the healthcare industry you're also putting them in the facets of nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle.

They'll pass bills on what you need to eat, how to eat it, and possibly even ban certain foods. Just a hypothetical thought, in my opinion.

Regardless, the U.S. Constitutions gives no guarantees to the right to health and/or healthcare. In states the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness; which means that you are the sole person to achieve those at your own merits. Healthcare should be an independent institution where the doctors have say in what you pay for their services.

Caledonian
Thursday, January 13th, 2011, 08:07 AM
Jng4TnKqy6A

dsD9A4vefpE

flemish
Sunday, January 16th, 2011, 09:36 PM
I'm in favor of the single payer system, and I live in the U.S. where that will never be adopted. Everyone is entitled to health care and shouldn't have to go into bankruptcy paying for it.

Ămeric
Sunday, January 16th, 2011, 11:35 PM
I'm in favor of the single payer system, and I live in the U.S. where that will never be adopted. Everyone is entitled to health care and shouldn't have to go into bankruptcy paying for it.

Could you please point out to me the section of the United States Constitution that states, "Everyone is entitled to health care". :)

Btw, Massachusetts adopted universal healthcare a few years ago, how is that working out?

Caledonian
Sunday, January 16th, 2011, 11:48 PM
Could you please point out to me the section of the United States Constitution that states, "Everyone is entitled to health care". :)

Btw, Massachusetts adopted universal healthcare a few years ago, how is that working out?

Why should common decency be constitutionalized?

Must everything be constitutionalized to be given credit or paid attention to?

Why should people go into debt or bankruptcy just to pay their healthcare? [ Especially amongst the poor.]

Is efficient health only somthng that should be afforded to the more wealthier only?

Ămeric
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:20 AM
Why should common decency be constitutionalized? What is decent about making some people purchase healthcare for others?


Must everything be constitutionalized to be given credit or paid attention to?Yes. The Constitutional defines, and limits, the power of the United States government.


Why should people go into debt or bankruptcy just to pay their healthcare? [ Especially amongst the poor.]Why should everyone go bankrupt providing free healthcare to everyone? You've heard of Medicare? The universal heathcare system for the elderly in the US. That program is going to bankrupt us, proving universal healthcare to everryone will just hasten the day we go broke.


Is efficient health only somthing that should be afforded to the more wealthier only?Lets get something straight: Free healthcare is not free, someone pays for it. The reasons for why healthcare is expensive have already been mentioned (tort law, the government ran Medicare system, administrative costs to comply with regulations), address the causes of runaway healthcare costs & the price of health insurance will come down. Btw, even the uninsured in America get medicare treatment, hospitals do not turn away the critical ill or injured.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:32 AM
Yes. The Constitutional defines, and limits, the power of the United States government.


I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but why should the constitution say what it does? You say "constitution says" as though that's equivalent to "God descended from the heavens and said it personally".

Caledonian
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:48 AM
What is decent about making some people purchase healthcare for others?

Yes. The Constitutional defines, and limits, the power of the United States government.

Why should everyone go bankrupt providing free healthcare to everyone? You've heard of Medicare? The universal heathcare system for the elderly in the US. That program is going to bankrupt us, proving universal healthcare to everryone will just hasten the day we go broke.

Lets get something straight: Free healthcare is not free, someone pays for it. The reasons for why healthcare is expensive have already been mentioned (tort law, the government ran Medicare system, administrative costs to comply with regulations), address the causes of runaway healthcare costs & the price of health insurance will come down. Btw, even the uninsured in America get medicare treatment, hospitals do not turn away the critical ill or injured.

Well hell if you don't like taxation or state sponsored government programs we might as well get rid of public and state retirement funds meaning you can be cut off from your retirement checks altogether where you can go back in the workplace working fourty hour weeks up into your old elderly age until your grave.

Now I wonder what the constitution has to say about that.

[It doesn't say anything about a right to retirement...........]


Sorry grandma looks like your going to work at mcdonalds way up into your eighties until you drop dead in the work place of a massive heart attack.

[That ought to go very well with the general public.]


[Maybe she will be lucky going to a hospital in a ambulance where she will be treated and saved just in time but she will wished she had died when faced with the bill and the prospect of financial bankruptcy realizing it would of just been cheaper for herself to just die instead except for the fact that whatever relatives she may have will have to actually pay her death tax ironically.]


Your just supporting the notion that there is a price for human life.

That's all...............

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:50 AM
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but why should the constitution say what it does? You say "constitution says" as though that's equivalent to "God descended from the heavens and said it personally".

The U.S. Constitution is our law of the land. While there may be other statues passed these must not go against the actual laws and rights of the people.

We have in this country certain inalienable rights that are supposed to protect the citizens from the government and each other. They are not based on any religious doctrine. They are however based on Anglo-Saxon common law and the ideas that all free men are equal. That includes being equal and seperate from the state.

Basically it defines we are citizens and not subjects. Therefore the state cannot impose its will on us. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

Ălfrun
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:52 AM
I have always found American health care interesting. I am quite content with universal health care. In Canada everyone gets granted health care whether they can afford it or not, and we do not have to pay for ridiculous hospital bills for the most part.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 12:54 AM
Basically it defines we are citizens and not subjects. Therefore the state cannot impose its will on us. At least that is how it is supposed to work.

I understand, but the constitution provides for being amended, and this has been done a number of times. Why should it not be amended again, to guarantee healthcare as a right?

Again, I don't wish for this to happen, but simply referencing what the constitution says comes across to me as weak argumentation. I'd like something more substantive against the idea of universal healthcare from the American conservative position.

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:05 AM
Well hell if you don't like taxation or state sponsored government programs we might as well get rid of public or state retirement funds meaning you can be cut off from your retirement checks where you can go back in the workplace working fourty hour weeks up into your old elderly age until your grave.


Sounds good to me. :thumbup

Really you should plan for your own retirement. Imagine all that SSI money that you pay the government so some illegal alien can get a free ride.;)



Now I wonder what the constitution has to say about that.

It doesn't say anything about a right to retirement...........


It does however say that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It does not guarantee you anything. You have to suck it up and take care of yourself.



Sorry grandma looks like your going to work at mcdonalds way up into your eighties until you drop dead in the work place.

Well there are two ways to look at this.

1. The cold hard way grandma should have been thinking of her retirement.

Now the good way

2. Where the hell is grandmas family, a new and surprising idea that the folk should take care of their own and not let any government do it for them. This in the long run would make the folk stronger and less dependant on the state.

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:17 AM
I understand, but the constitution provides for being amended, and this has been done a number of times. Why should it not be amended again, to guarantee healthcare as a right?

Again, I don't wish for this to happen, but simply referencing what the constitution says comes across to me as weak argumentation. I'd like something more substantive against the idea of universal health care from the American conservative position.

Well in order for the Constitution to be amended it has to be ratified by the individual states and the people. Right now over 75 % of the people are against government run health care/ health insurance. It is a rare occasion that new Amendments are added, I don't think there has been one in my life and I'm 44.

The most substantive thing against government run health is the people don't want it and our Constitution protects us from things the people don't want( government intrusion into our personal lives).

Most Americans are the do it yourself types, meaning we don't want or need the state to take care of us.;)

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:22 AM
It does however say that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


That's the declaration of independence, which is not a legal document. What the constitution says is that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:32 AM
That's the declaration of independence, which is not a legal document. What the constitution says is that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

The declaration is a legal document same as the Constitution and the articles of confederation. Along with these also go the federalist papers. All part of our legal documents.;)

The due process of law in this case is the government if trying to force the people to purchase something they don't want or need. They are in fact breaking the laws set fourth in the Constitution by mandating we purchase something(liberty). This much has been decided already in a federal court.

Sorry about the confusion I was answering his post about retirement. Yes SSI is also illegal and you can opt out of it like the Amish do.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:41 AM
The declaration is a legal document same as the Constitution and the articles of confederation. Along with these also go the federalist papers. All part of our legal documents.;)

My apologies. I had been informed otherwise.


They are in fact breaking the laws set fourth in the Constitution by mandating we purchase something(liberty).

This kind of thing is got away with by the federal government by stretching the bit about inter-state commerce, is it not?

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:50 AM
This kind of thing is got away with by the federal government by stretching the bit about inter-state commerce, is it not?

Hehe stretching is a nice word, the commerce clause is probably the most abused thing in all or our laws. ;)

But it does not supersede the basic rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights( Constitution ). Thank the gods for that.:)

Loyalist
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 01:59 AM
In Canada everyone gets granted health care whether they can afford it or not...

And so does everyone in America. The majority pay for private insurance and receive care superior to that which is provided by a single-payer system. A lower tax rate, consequent to the government not raping taxpayers to pay for some socialized monstrosity, allows said group to purchase that insurance, which is actually cheaper than a universal system. There are safety nets for the elderly and the poor, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

I am simply astonished that anyone is arguing for a universal health care system on this forum. :thumbdown

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 02:03 AM
Hehe stretching is a nice word, the commerce clause is probably the most abused thing in all or our laws. ;)

That it is abused indicates that the supreme court is complicit, does it not, even though said court has a significant conservative presence? Does that not mean that the conservative "establishment" cannot be trusted?

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 02:10 AM
That it is abused indicates that the supreme court is complicit, does it not, even though said court has a significant conservative presence? Does that not mean that the conservative "establishment" cannot be trusted?


The supreme court only hears cases that are brought before it. Unfortunately many cases end in the lower federal courts. Many of the lower court judges are not so conservative.

No government "establishment" can be trusted, that is why we have the Second Amendment .;)

Anyway I'm off for the night, somebody around here is feeling neglected and wants me to watch a movie with her.;)

Ălfrun
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 02:31 AM
And so does everyone in America. The majority pay for private insurance and receive care superior to that which is provided by a single-payer system. A lower tax rate, consequent to the government not raping taxpayers to pay for some socialized monstrosity, allows said group to purchase that insurance, which is actually cheaper than a universal system. There are safety nets for the elderly and the poor, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

I am simply astonished that anyone is arguing for a universal health care system on this forum. :thumbdown

That is really interesting.

Hevneren
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 11:41 AM
I'm quite happy with universal healthcare (UHC) in Norway, even though it's not perfect (then again, what system is?). I laugh at the hysterical American anti-UHC propaganda that I read and hear about, because US media pundits on the far right are painting countries with UHC as Stalinist dictatorships where people stand in line just to get a loaf of bread. The sort of hysterical, jingoistic and laughable rhetoric that we see in the USA, reflects on a lack of general knowledge and understanding, as well as a false belief in the magic powers of corporatism... oops, I meant capitalism!

Just because you shuffle money at insurance companies and doctors, doesn't necassarily mean you get a good healthcare system. The US system is more expensive per capita than any Western UHC alternative, and yet with the greater expense you get fewer people (as a %) benefiting from it than you do with a cheaper UHC system!

Someone wrote that most wealthy people move out in countries with UHC and the like, because of high taxation. Honestly, that's not true. Yes, some do, but taxation on corporations isn't astronomically high, and neither is the taxation on people's fortunes. In fact, in many cases middle income and middle-high income people pay more taxes, in proportion to high income people. As a result, most high income people in Norway choose to stay in the country.

Another thing I'd like to bring up, is that you're free to get private health coverage in Norway as well, and use private healthcare facilities. So, unlike the USA, you have a choice between getting treatment through UHC or using a private healthcare alternative (if you can afford it, which many can).

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 11:55 AM
^ The problem is the obama care system they are trying to impose is not like what you have in Norway.

First and foremost obama care is not about health care it is about health insurance they are two separate things. Basically under obama care the government is forcing people to buy health insurance. Health care is already available to everybody in this country. There are already laws stating hospitals and doctors cannot turn people away.

Ămeric
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 03:34 PM
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but why should the constitution say what it does? You say "constitution says" as though that's equivalent to "God descended from the heavens and said it personally".Unlike some people I do not believe the Constitution was inspired by God & should be treated like a holy documant. But the Constitution is an agreement (contract) between the states & the Federal Government, defining the responsibilities & powers of the Federal Government. Why shouldn't the Federal Govenment be expected to honor the Constitution? Why should the Federal Government be allowed to make demands on the people for which it has no authoirty to do so?


I understand, but the constitution provides for being amended, and this has been done a number of times. Why should it not be amended again, to guarantee healthcare as a right?You are right, the Constitution can be amended to make healthcare a constitutional right. But it take either 1: 2/3 of both houses of Congress to approve an amendment, which would then be sent to the states for ratification. It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment before it becomes law. 2: 2/3 of the states can pass a resolution for a constitutional convention,where the constitution can be amended or entirely rewritten. This has never happened.

What the left has done for over 50 years is instead of lobbying for constituional amendments they petition the courts to reinterprete what the Constitution means. Hense all the fighitng over Supreme Court nomiees.


Again, I don't wish for this to happen, but simply referencing what the constitution says comes across to me as weak argumentation. I'd like something more substantive against the idea of universal healthcare from the American conservative position.You do not support the idea of constitutional government. The option you seem to be favoring is a total democracy, where what the majority says (50% + 1) is the law. Such a government could pass any law, no matter how repressive or dumb. It is an invitation to mob rule.




Sorry grandma looks like your going to work at mcdonalds way up into your eighties until you drop dead in the work place of a massive heart attack.

[That ought to go very well with the general public.]Not a bad idea, people are living longer, we should raise the retirement age. Some people like working beyond 65, otherwise they would just vegetate.




Your just supporting the notion that there is a price for human life.

There is. Whenever someone sues for unlawful death, the court decides how much that life was worth. When someone buys life insurance they are putting a value on their life. In healthcare we must decide when it is too much to keep someone alive. Is it really worth the cost to spend $500,000 to keep someone alive who will continue living in ill heath & on disability?

The ideas behind insurance is that people pool their risks. Most people who buy fire insurance will never need to file a claim, but in case their house burns down they can be reimbursed for the value of the house. It is the same with health insurance, you pool your risks.


I have always found American health care interesting. I am quite content with universal health care. In Canada everyone gets granted health care whether they can afford it or not, and we do not have to pay for ridiculous hospital bills for the most part.1: The Federal Government is not very good at running anything cost effective. The elderly use up the majority of healthcare in America, we already have universal healthcare for those 65+ (Medicare, based on the Canadian system), subsidized by the private sector, accounting for the expensive cost of private health insurance.

Universal healthcare is also a form of wealth distribution. In the US that mean taking from Bill & Cheryl & giving to Leroy & Kai'sha or to Jose & Lupe.

Ardito
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 03:59 PM
You are right, the Constitution can be amended to make healthcare a constitutional right. But it take either 1: 2/3 of both houses of Congress to approve an amendment, which would then be sent to the states for ratification. It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment before it becomes law. 2: 2/3 of the states can pass a resolution for a constitutional convention,where the constitution can be amended or entirely rewritten. This has never happened.

I'm aware of the process of amendment, but I wasn't talking about that. Why shouldn't it be done? If the amendment were being debated, and you were chosen to defend the conservative position, what argument would you make?



What the left has done for over 50 years is instead of lobbying for constituional amendments they petition the courts to reinterprete what the Constitution means. Hense all the fighitng over Supreme Court nomiees.

It is a rather unpleasant and dishonest strategy on their part, yes.



You do not support the idea of constitutional government. The option you seem to be favoring is a total democracy, where what the majority says (50% + 1) is the law. Such a government could pass any law, no matter how repressive or dumb. It is an invitation to mob rule.

I'm a monarchist. Philosophically and theologically speaking, I have nothing but bile for democracy, but democracy currently exists, so it has to be worked around.



Not a bad idea, people are living longer, we should raise the retirement age. Some people like working beyond 65, otherwise they would just vegetate.

The age people live to these days is silly. We need to die sooner or work longer. The former seems like a more realistic solution.



Universal healthcare is also a form of wealth distribution. In the US that mean taking from Bill & Cheryl & giving to Leroy & Kai'sha or to Jose & Lupe.

This, along with a general distrust of everything the American federal government says or does, is why I am opposed to universal healthcare in America. That said, I trust private businesses almost as little.

Magni
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 04:31 PM
Could you please point out to me the section of the United States Constitution that states, "Everyone is entitled to health care". :)

Btw, Massachusetts adopted universal healthcare a few years ago, how is that working out?

It works out great for me. I get free* health care and it is the best health insurance I have ever had. The only thing that sucks is that they dropped the dental except for extractions. Everyone that lives here gets this unless they have a better plan. Even if your job offers insurance but it sucks you still get the state insurance instead.

It is pretty much the first time in my life that I go for regular check ups and it came in real handy when my wife and I had our child. It is nice that our child gets regular visits and all her vaccines as well. It is certainly a comfort knowing that my child will not be going without health care .


*We pay taxes that contribute so I guess it is not really free.

Magni
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 04:38 PM
It does however say that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.




Actually "All men are created equal" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are both from the Declaration of Independence and not in the constitution at all.


People are constantly mixing those two documents up though.

SpearBrave
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 05:00 PM
Actually "All men are created equal" and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are both from the Declaration of Independence and not in the constitution at all.


People are constantly mixing those two documents up though.


I already noted I made that mistake, I just did not want edit the post.;)


Still though it does not mean that you are guaranteed anything, you have to work for it.:thumbup

The fact it does not mention anything in any of our founding documents guaranteeing your retirement or any other entitlement should give you a clue that your must earn your own way through life.

I think that is something that is missing from our education these days. Everybody should realize from a very early age that you should be prepared and that no one is going to wet nurse you though life.

Magni
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Ah. I apologize then. I didn't see it. :D

Ůorei­ar
Monday, January 17th, 2011, 05:56 PM
According to them also there is indeed a price on human life in general.And according to you, there's a price on a human's freedom?

I don't want to be forced to work for others' people welfare. I do it gladly out of free will for the people around me I care about.


I'm quite happy with universal healthcare (UHC) in Norway, even though it's not perfect (then again, what system is?).That's the common excuse, ain't it? Still, not much of a comfort for the many elders freezing to death and sleeping hallways because of the incompetence of the public health system.


Another thing I'd like to bring up, is that you're free to get private health coverage in Norway as well, and use private healthcare facilities. So, unlike the USA, you have a choice between getting treatment through UHC or using a private healthcare alternative (if you can afford it, which many can).Sorry, I don't have money for that after the taxation.

Wittmann
Friday, January 21st, 2011, 07:17 AM
http://satwcomic.com/art/the-end-of-america.jpg