Interesting take on Universal Healthcare

[kevinsmith]

Now, by no means do I think our system here is perfect. But at the same time, I don't necessarily think socialized medicine is a panacea either. People have defended it, and I can see why, there are certainly some aspects I can see that appear attractive. But this video is evidence of what I fear, what happens when you let bureaucracy get involved in something that needs to be as timely as healthcare.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php

[avix123]

It says, "were sorry, this video is no longer available."

[Canuk]

Though the Canadian system is sometimes slow it is all completely free. In America if you have Cancer or anything major you may have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. The Idea of a two tier system has been kicked around in Canada which I do support. In Quebec they might introduce legislation soon to make doctors and surgeons able to practice in the Private sector after a quota of hours worked in the public sector every week is met. It is still important to remember though that having a slow system that is free is still better than having no system or a system run by Insurance companies that destroy peoples lives. Also, there are many instances in Ontario where the Government will send patients to America for faster treatment and the government will pick up the bill. Our system isnt perfect but its still better than America's system.

[Son of God]

Another interesting take...

Life expectancy
Canada 80.2
US 77.8

Infant mortality rate
Canada 5.3
US 6.8

Physicians per 1000 people
Canada 2.2
US 2.4

Nurses per 1000 people
Canada 10.0
US 7.9

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Canada 3,326
US 6,401

Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP
Canada 9.8
US 15.3

% of government revenue spent on health
Canada 16.7
US 18.5

% of health costs paid by government
Canada 70.3
US 45.1

- OECD

I also would support a two-tiered system.

[kevinsmith]

It says, "were sorry, this video is no longer available."

I just clicked the link and again I could see the video...I just think youtube doesn't like you.
;)

Though the Canadian system is sometimes slow it is all completely free. In America if you have Cancer or anything major you may have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. The Idea of a two tier system has been kicked around in Canada which I do support. In Quebec they might introduce legislation soon to make doctors and surgeons able to practice in the Private sector after a quota of hours worked in the public sector every week is met. It is still important to remember though that having a slow system that is free is still better than having no system or a system run by Insurance companies that destroy peoples lives. Also, there are many instances in Ontario where the Government will send patients to America for faster treatment and the government will pick up the bill. Our system isnt perfect but its still better than America's system.

Again, I'm not saying our system is perfect either. And I have a feeling this will sooner or later devolve into the typical "The US sucks at (insert anything here)" vs "No it doesn't, we rock". The point is, free is good, yes, but free at the expense of needed, timely care isn't. Slow sucks. Slow can kill just as much as not being able to afford the healthcare. I don't trust a bureaucracy with my life. A bureaucracy lives to serve itself. It is self perpetuating. It thrives on red tape. And that's the last thing we need in healthcare. If my healthcare needs to go to committee to get approved, I'm fucked. Neither system is perfect. If ours were, people wouldn't go there to get meds and what not. If Canada's was, people would leave there to get quick care here. Perhaps a blend of the two systems, as opposed to either one emulating the other.

[chalupa]

Another interesting take...

Life expectancy
Canada 80.2
US 77.8

Infant mortality rate
Canada 5.3
US 6.8

Physicians per 1000 people
Canada 2.2
US 2.4

Nurses per 1000 people
Canada 10.0
US 7.9

Per capita expenditure on health (USD)
Canada 3,326
US 6,401

Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP
Canada 9.8
US 15.3

% of government revenue spent on health
Canada 16.7
US 18.5

% of health costs paid by government
Canada 70.3
US 45.1

- OECD

I also would support a two-tiered system.
Are any of these numbers backed/supported by a US govt study? I ask because people are going to claim that the OECD is biased...what with it being based in France and all.

[Chewy]

I also would support a two-tiered system.

I would as well. If done right it would allow for the best of both worlds.

Personally I think the fear mongering of socialized medicine is rather foolish, we have no issue with socialized highways, education, space exploration and military.

[Canuk]

A two tier system would be best for Canada. For instance, the Canadian Health Care system is horrible at dealing with people that need organ transplants. But, that being said, whenever I got sick as a kid all my mom had to do was call my doctor and we would have an appointment that day. Since it was free whenever me or any of my siblings were sick for over a day we would go. Why? because it was free and it was quick and solved all of our problems. When I injured by hand once, I had to sit in the hospital for a few hours but I got treated and payed nothing. While for major things it may be slow, for the small things its great. The American system may be super fast but it is also pretty fucked up. If anything there is more bureaucracy in America surrounding health care since Insurance companies basically run the system. I have heard about people in America being turned away from hospitals because they cant pay or having to pay for surgeries because the hospital wasn't in their "health insurance plan". Also, in America if you get sick you have to pay every time you want to see a doctor. If it is covered it is because people are paying massive amounts of health insurance. The Canadian system is slow but there is little bureaucracy, the delays are from so many people using the services which therefore backs up the system, we have a lot of old people atm in Canada. For all of the Canadian systems faults as I said it is better than Americas system.

[Face Plant]

That video was very anecdotal and looked like it was produced by a lobby

Recent 60 Minutes episode - hundreds and hundreds of people, some driving hundreds of miles for a free clinic. Remote Area Medical, a clinic that usually works in the 3rd world now does 60% of its work in urban and rural America

U.S. Health Care Gets Boost From Charity
60 Minutes/CBS NEWS
Remote Area Medical was founded to bring free medicine to remote parts of the world, but now also helps thousands of Americans who have no health insurance or are underinsured. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/60minutes/main3889496.shtml

[kevinsmith]

I would as well. If done right it would allow for the best of both worlds.

Personally I think the fear mongering of socialized medicine is rather foolish, we have no issue with socialized highways, education, space exploration and military.

We don't? Really?
We bitch about the military.
We bitch about our education system (rightfully so) and we all know private schools are better.
Roads rarely get done as quickly as we like them, and many municipalities are turning to private roads and toll roads to solve transportation woes.

[Jenovah]

The problem with the US health care system seems to lie in the HMO, without them health care would at least be affordable, which would do alot of good.

I'm a supported of free (basic) health-care myself, but I can understand why such a proposal could come under alot of flak from the American people.

One thing I do hate is when people say "Free healthcare, ZOMFG SOCIALISM!" which is a piss-poor argument IMO.

[_Joe]

Though the Canadian system is sometimes slow it is all completely free. In America if you have Cancer or anything major you may have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. The Idea of a two tier system has been kicked around in Canada which I do support. In Quebec they might introduce legislation soon to make doctors and surgeons able to practice in the Private sector after a quota of hours worked in the public sector every week is met. It is still important to remember though that having a slow system that is free is still better than having no system or a system run by Insurance companies that destroy peoples lives. Also, there are many instances in Ontario where the Government will send patients to America for faster treatment and the government will pick up the bill. Our system isnt perfect but its still better than America's system.

Despite how nice that sounds, we can't afford it because we like making war and flushing money down a failing social security toilet.

[droogsteve]

One thing I do hate is when people say "Free healthcare, ZOMFG SOCIALISM!" which is a piss-poor argument IMO.


I don't understand the unparalleled hostility that comes out when discussing government subsidized health care. It provokes a reaction like no other issue. When Bush got up in front of the G-8 summit and proposed doubling US funds to provide AIDS relief and other health care in Africa to $10 billion, his supporters talked about how compassionate America is blah blah blah. However, had he proposed that the government spend $10 billion to provide coverage for uninsured working Americans, those same supporters would desert him, calling him a socialist.

Apparently, tax dollars to provide health care to foreigners = Humanitarianism. Tax dollars to provide health care to Americans = socialism. Odd logic, to say the least.

As I've posted before, we already have socialized medicine. The elderly get Medicare, people without jobs have Medicaid. The people who get fucked are the working poor who can't afford insurance. But you end up paying for them too. Instead of going to a doctor for routine health care, they let conditions go until they end up in the ER followed by a long hospitalization. Instead of a $200 doctor visit, they rack up a $30,000 bill that won't be paid. Those costs are passed on to your county and municipal hospital system, paid for with your tax dollars, and increase the costs of healthcare for everyone.


Hilary Clinton's plan, while lacking detail, has a radical and very interesting concept: making health insurance mandatory. It wouldn't effect those who already have private insurance. What it would do is create a government subsidized affordable health insurance plan for the uninsured through payroll deductions. If you are uninsured, the deductions would be taken out of your check just like FICA. The amount would be determined by a sliding scale based on income.

While forcing people to buy insurance seems like a radical concept, it has precedent. We force people to contribute to Social Security. And while Social Security is far from perfect, it serves a very important purpose: it makes people contribute to their own retirement rather than have them spend every penny and end up sucking off the taxpayers by going on welfare when they become too old to work.

Same here. As I said, we're ALREADY paying these people's health care costs one way or another. With this plan, at least they'd be contributing to those costs, with the added bonus of staying healthier by having access to decent medical care. They'll be able to treat relatively cheap medical problems before they become expensive problems. And that will save us all money in the long run.

[Fungus Amungus]

If I need heart surgery I don't want to wait 6 months for it. Kthnxbai.

[_Joe]

I'm not really against it. We need to curtail our spending habits if we want to make it happen without bankrupting us, but if we do we will kill two birds with one stone: Stop spending obscene amounts of money on war, and provide health care for all citizens. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as we do it right.

[modogthemonkey]

Stop spending obscene amounts of money on war, and provide health care for all citizens. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as we do it right.

Theres an old saying... "look after those that look after you"

If I need heart surgery I don't want to wait 6 months for it. Kthnxbai.

If you want it quicker just pay for it. :dunce:

[JustinJJ]

When it comes to health care, the first thing that needs to be done is to eliminate Medicare and social security. Old people need to stop receiving government paid health care. Spending tax payer's money on old people is like spending $10,000 to repair a 1989 Honda Civic; it's not worth it.

Really, what's the point in spending some absurd amount of money on someone who is 80 years old? So they can live an extra 3 years? Beyond that, you don't get any return on your investment. If you spent the money on curing a 30 year old of cancer, that 30 year old will continue to be in the workforce, raise a family, and contribute to society. When you invest that money into an 80 year old, it goes nowhere. The 80 year old will live for another year with tubes stuck up his nose in some nursing home. It's pointless.

As cold and heartless as that may sound, it's true. There's a certain point where you have to say "You lived a nice long life but it's time to kick the bucket". Of course, if the old person has the money, then by all means spend it on whatever form of health care you want, but don't use government (the tax payer's) money. If the government stopped wasting money on old people, then young and middle-aged people can receive treatments and continue to contribute to society.

For the same reasons above, that's why advances in medicine are actually horrible. What do advances in medicine do? They extend the lifespan of old people. However, they don't make the elderly more productive, instead, the old folk are dependent on the medicine. Since they get their medicine from the government, old people become dependent on tax payer's money.

It's only going to get worse too. With the baby boomers getting old and less people having kids, it's going to be a HUGE burden on the upcoming generation to support all those old people. In 2005, 1/3 of the budget (http://encarta.msn.com/media_461536304/u_s_government_spending.html) went to social security and Medicare. Imagine what the figure will be in 10 years.

The money used for social security and Medicare would be better spent elsewhere or even better, the money should return to the taxpayer in the form of much lower taxes.

[modogthemonkey]

Really, what's the point in spending some absurd amount of money on someone who is 80 years old? So they can live an extra 3 years? Beyond that, you don't get any return on your investment. If you spent the money on curing a 30 year old of cancer, that 30 year old will continue to be in the workforce, raise a family, and contribute to society. When you invest that money into an 80 year old, it goes nowhere. The 80 year old will live for another year with tubes stuck up his nose in some nursing home. It's pointless..

In that case why not just put them out of there misery when they retire?

[JustinJJ]

In that case why not just put them out of there misery when they retire?

What? I said that the government shouldn't pay for their health care. This is not about eliminating those who aren't productive, it's about government spending.

[Chewy]

We don't? Really?
We bitch about the military.
We bitch about our education system (rightfully so) and we all know private schools are better. You may bitch about them but you accept their need and usefulness.

As droog has pointed out that the US currently expels financial resources for other nations to have this service yet fan away from it at home. Why a person can be gullible to think that providing such a service to a nation like Iraq on the backs of the US tax payer and not to their own people is beyond me.



Roads rarely get done as quickly as we like them, and many municipalities are turning to private roads and toll roads to solve transportation woes.
a two tiered system, which like I said I see value in.

[modogthemonkey]

What? I said that the government shouldn't pay for their health care. This is not about eliminating those who aren't productive, it's about government spending.

If I've been productive and served my country well in life,I would want some kind of care in my later years and not just castaside like yesterdays news.

I'm sure you would as well.

[Dickin Syder]

Universal healthcare?

FUCK NO

I'm not using my fucking TAX DOLLARS to pay for medicare for people on Mars and inside Venus.

FUCK THAT NOISE!

[JustinJJ]

If I've been productive and served my country well in life,I would want some kind of care in my later years and not just castaside like yesterdays news.

I'm sure you would as well.

That's a good point. However, being productive is for your own benefit. Serving you country, however, is different. If you are a veteran you obviously deserve care. Even as a taxpayer, you would deserve care based on your tax burden. If you got rid of those programs, there would be less of a tax burden: you wouldn't being paying for someone else's health care. In that case, someone else wouldn't be paying for your health care either. Each person pays for their own health care. That would end the problem of having a small young generation having to pay for a large old generation since each person pays for their own.

Here's another thing to think about. Let's say the government does implement a health care program. Who should receive the benefits? You have working class families who can't afford health care and are too young to receive Medicare benefits. So for example, why does a 40 year old man with cancer who has a family and a low income job have to go without health care while an 80 year old man with cancer is receiving treatment? If you had to put the money somewhere where would you put it?

What happens? The 40 year old man dies a year later leaving his family without a source of income and his children lose their dad at a very young age. The 80 year old man receives treatment and dies two years later due to old age. He was no longer in the workforce and his family isn't dependent on him. It's sad to see him die, but he lived a long and happy life.

What if the government had a different program where low income families could receive health care? The 40 year old man who has cancer is treated. He recovers from the cancer 6 months later. He is able to continue working and supporting his family. The 40 year old man dies 35 years later at the age of 75. The 80 year old man has cancer. He dies 3 months later. He was no longer in the workforce and his family isn't dependent on him. It's sad to see him die, but he lived a long and happy life.

[_Joe]

Universal healthcare?

FUCK NO

I'm not using my fucking TAX DOLLARS to pay for medicare for people on Mars and inside Venus.

FUCK THAT NOISE!

That money would also be used to take care of you, you realize that, right?

[kevinsmith]

Hilary Clinton's plan, while lacking detail, has a radical and very interesting concept: making health insurance mandatory. It wouldn't effect those who already have private insurance. What it would do is create a government subsidized affordable health insurance plan for the uninsured through payroll deductions. If you are uninsured, the deductions would be taken out of your check just like FICA. The amount would be determined by a sliding scale based on income.

While forcing people to buy insurance seems like a radical concept, it has precedent. We force people to contribute to Social Security. And while Social Security is far from perfect, it serves a very important purpose: it makes people contribute to their own retirement rather than have them spend every penny and end up sucking off the taxpayers by going on welfare when they become too old to work.

Same here. As I said, we're ALREADY paying these people's health care costs one way or another. With this plan, at least they'd be contributing to those costs, with the added bonus of staying healthier by having access to decent medical care. They'll be able to treat relatively cheap medical problems before they become expensive problems. And that will save us all money in the long run.

It's not the "oh noez it's teh socializm" reason that I'm leery of universal healthcare, it's the administration of said healthcare needs. Our government is awash in bureaucratic red tape in pretty much every division. Need a passport? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually, on our time frame. Need tax stuff? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually. On our time frame. The same will happen with healthcare as hundreds upon hundreds (ironicall, it still won't be enough) case workers examine each case, make sure the treatment is valid, necessary and what not, to ensure that tax dollars aren't wasted. Meanwhile Joe Blow is waiting for months for his surgery which needed to happen yesterday because he's aorta is about to blow up. But hold on, we have forms that need to be filled out. Then sent in. Once those are sent in, we'll lose them. You fill them out again. We'll examine the need, and in a few weeks to months you'll get your notification. We'll decline it. You'll appeal. We'll approve it then. But then you'll be dead, and we'll tax your estate. Sounds just like insurance companies only tax funded. I just don't like the idea of trusting my health care to an entity we all know can't do much quickly or efficiently.

[Spike Lee]

It's not the "oh noez it's teh socializm" reason that I'm leery of universal healthcare, it's the administration of said healthcare needs. Our government is awash in bureaucratic red tape in pretty much every division. Need a passport? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually, on our time frame. Need tax stuff? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually. On our time frame. The same will happen with healthcare as hundreds upon hundreds (ironicall, it still won't be enough) case workers examine each case, make sure the treatment is valid, necessary and what not, to ensure that tax dollars aren't wasted. Meanwhile Joe Blow is waiting for months for his surgery which needed to happen yesterday because he's aorta is about to blow up. But hold on, we have forms that need to be filled out. Then sent in. Once those are sent in, we'll lose them. You fill them out again. We'll examine the need, and in a few weeks to months you'll get your notification. We'll decline it. You'll appeal. We'll approve it then. But then you'll be dead, and we'll tax your estate. Sounds just like insurance companies only tax funded. I just don't like the idea of trusting my health care to an entity we all know can't do much quickly or efficiently.

You assume that the system is automatically built to work that way. Who says we can't take the system and eliminate the beuracratic nonsense that comes along with it? It really sounds apathetic when people say, "Oh but it comes with this". Beurocracy is implemented to make sure things are not abused. We can eliminate that with Healthcare.

[kevinsmith]

You assume that the system is automatically built to work that way. Who says we can't take the system and eliminate the beuracratic nonsense that comes along with it? It really sounds apathetic when people say, "Oh but it comes with this". Beurocracy is implemented to make sure things are not abused. We can eliminate that with Healthcare.


Do you all of a sudden have this respect and faith in our government that it can actually do something as monumental as healthcare without fucking it up?
Because the last time I checked, you seemed to be one of the most cynical, critical voices of our government.
Rightfully so many times. But seriously, I doubt out govenrment can create something so huge without applying a massive layer of bureaucracy. The top most poeple will let their friends in. They'll let their friends in. So on and so forth until countless favors have been repaid and everyone that's a friend has a job, creating bullshit. Mounds and mounds of bullshit you and I will have to wade through.

[Spike Lee]

Do you all of a sudden have this respect and faith in our government that it can actually do something as monumental as healthcare without fucking it up?
Because the last time I checked, you seemed to be one of the most cynical, critical voices of our government.

I'm critical of a political party that has been in charge for most of this decade that promotes a war and yet says we cannot trust the government with healthcare. I do think that there are people in government that know how to make it work.

[Jenovah]

I don't understand the unparalleled hostility that comes out when discussing government subsidized health care. It provokes a reaction like no other issue. When Bush got up in front of the G-8 summit and proposed doubling US funds to provide AIDS relief and other health care in Africa to $10 billion, his supporters talked about how compassionate America is blah blah blah. However, had he proposed that the government spend $10 billion to provide coverage for uninsured working Americans, those same supporters would desert him, calling him a socialist.

Apparently, tax dollars to provide health care to foreigners = Humanitarianism. Tax dollars to provide health care to Americans = socialism. Odd logic, to say the least.

That's EXACTLY what I wanted to say, thank you for wording it so nicely!

[Fungus Amungus]

I think there should be an option wether you want medicare taxed off your check. if you don't, you can't apply for medicare. That simple. I have more than enough money to take care of month to month issues and if I was hit with something hard like cancer I'll find a way to pay for the bills.

[Mr. Heskey]

I honestly don't get the whole idea of government entitlements. Yet another thing Lyndon Johnson fucked up royally on.

[TFS]

If you're going to socialize healthcare, the obvious way to do it is to allow people to pay for timely treatment out of their pockets and then get reimbursed by the government after the fact.

It's just like when my van window got smashed out just 5 days before I had to drive to Cleveland for Thanksgiving. Obviously, with the weather, the need to travel, and the neighborhood I'm in, I cannot afford to have my van exposed like that, it needed to be fixed that day. I called my insurance provider, made the claim, took it to the dealership that day, and got the window replaced, and paid for it out of my pocket, saved the receipt, and forwarded a copy of it to the insurance company who reimbursed me.

Need for timely medical attention > need for timely auto-repairs. If it can work like that for auto repairs, there's no reason it can't for medicine.

It's ridiculous that those that can't afford it themselves can't get it in the US, and it's ridiculous that those that can afford it can't get it as soon as the money is available (source be damned) in Canada. both have the same problem of availability, just in different places in their social structure.

It looks to me like common sense doesn't play much of a factor in many ways on either side of the fence.

[droogsteve]

It's not the "oh noez it's teh socializm" reason that I'm leery of universal healthcare, it's the administration of said healthcare needs. Our government is awash in bureaucratic red tape in pretty much every division. Need a passport? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually, on our time frame. Need tax stuff? Wait a while. We'll get it done. Eventually. On our time frame. The same will happen with healthcare as hundreds upon hundreds (ironicall, it still won't be enough) case workers examine each case, make sure the treatment is valid, necessary and what not, to ensure that tax dollars aren't wasted.

So instead of the taxpayer and our representatives in government demanding accountability and trying to fix the broken bureaucracy, we should just assume it will fail and not bother?


Thinking like yours is the reason the government is such a mess to begin with. When we start to accept failure, or worse, grow to assume and expect failure, we fail. This must stop.


Meanwhile Joe Blow is waiting for months for his surgery which needed to happen yesterday because he's aorta is about to blow up. But hold on, we have forms that need to be filled out. Then sent in. Once those are sent in, we'll lose them. You fill them out again. We'll examine the need, and in a few weeks to months you'll get your notification. We'll decline it. You'll appeal. We'll approve it then. But then you'll be dead, and we'll tax your estate.

Oh, we're doing worse case scenarios? I've got one that's much more likely. In fact, it happens every single day:

Joe Blow ignores his symptoms because his job doesn't offer health insurance and he can't afford to go to the doctor. One day, he has a heart attack and either A) he dies and his family is left without support. His wife and kids now get welfare, as well as a nice Social Security death benefit check every month, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Or B)Joe Blow has a heart attack and the highly skilled Paramedic crew :bigwink: keeps him alive long enough to get him to the hospital. Since he let his condition go untreated for so long, instead of a simple cardiac catheterzation, he requires a triple bypass. He can't pay the bill, of course, so that $60,000 or so is borne by the taxpayers. But it gets better. Now he is unable to work and requires expensive follow up treatment. He's now eligible for SSI disability and Medicaid pays for his treatment. And since he's making no money, all of his dependents now qualify for Medicaid as well.

For every imagined horror story you can think of for government subsidized health care, I'll give you ten real ones I've witnessed as a Paramedic in the current system.



Sounds just like insurance companies only tax funded. I just don't like the idea of trusting my health care to an entity we all know can't do much quickly or efficiently.


Would you feel that way if you you had no insurance or access to health care at all? Somehow I doubt it.

I'll repeat the most important part of the Clinton plan: If you're already insured, IT WOULDN'T EFFECT YOU AT ALL. You'd have the same coverage you have now. All it does is mandate government subsidized insurance for those with no other alternative. The people that just can't afford to go to the doctor. And there are millions of them. I seem them clogging the ERs every day.


A regular doctor won't seem them, so the ER becomes their regular doctor. Instead of a $100 office visit to get a new Albuterol inhaler for their asthma, they go to the ER, which must do a complete workup before prescribing anything. That's 2 grand, at least, a bill that they can't afford to pay, not in a million years. So we, the taxpayer and health care consumer, bear the cost. Had they had affordable insurance mandated by payroll deduction we wouldn't have to. They would have been treated at a regular office visit at a fraction of the cost and they would have contributed to paying that cost.

I understand your aversion to government bureaucracy, believe me I do. But what you're arguing here seems to be that having NO health care for the working poor is preferable to having government subsidized health care. I believe that's a ridiculous argument. And I'm sure that the millions of working Americans who can't afford to go to the doctor would agree with me.


This issue angers me like few others. We'll support every chronically unemployed crackhead and junkie with welfare and Medicaid. We'll give billions EVERY YEAR to Israel, a country that spies on us and has actually murdered our sailors in the past. We have money to throw at phony wars and every third world nation that has it's hand out as well as ridiculously unnecessary pork barrel projects. But suggest subsidizing basic healthcare for the working poor, and people will fight you tooth and nail. I just don't understand that. We're the richest nation in the world, and I believe that if you're a productive member of our society willing to work hard to support your family, you and your children should be able to go to the fucking doctor when you're sick, even if you make the minimum wage. I have no idea how people could be against this.

As the old saying goes "The world needs ditch diggers too". And it's true. These people may have low paying jobs that me or you would consider menial, but they're still necessary. They contribute to our society, and as a civilized society, health care should be their right.

[chalupa]

Universal health care is a crock of shit. I don't know why I should have to pay for health care in someone else's galaxy.

[drahkcorjc]

Universal health care is a crock of shit. I don't know why I should have to pay for health care in someone else's galaxy.

Hey, at least it's not multiversal health care.

[kevinsmith]

Thinking like yours is the reason the government is such a mess to begin with. When we start to accept failure, or worse, grow to assume and expect failure, we fail. This must stop.


I'll have agree with your statement there.
Government is a mess because of complacency. The "majority" of us are fat and happy, so we're fine with whatever happens. I "expect" failure because I've seen it on so many lines in our government. I need to to be proven to me that they can make this work. If they can show me they can make it work, I'll back it up 100 percent.
I think of my stance more as guarded cyncicism, as opposed to blind trust that the government can make it all okay, and go ahead and trust another important part of my life to "daddy". They already have my privacy all but obliterated....why not let the same entity handle my healthcare.



Joe Blow ignores his symptoms because his job doesn't offer health insurance and he can't afford to go to the doctor. One day, he has a heart attack and either A) he dies and his family is left without support. His wife and kids now get welfare, as well as a nice Social Security death benefit check every month, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Or B)Joe Blow has a heart attack and the highly skilled Paramedic crew :bigwink: keeps him alive long enough to get him to the hospital. Since he let his condition go untreated for so long, instead of a simple cardiac catheterzation, he requires a triple bypass. He can't pay the bill, of course, so that $60,000 or so is borne by the taxpayers. But it gets better. Now he is unable to work and requires expensive follow up treatment. He's now eligible for SSI disability and Medicaid pays for his treatment. And since he's making no money, all of his dependents now qualify for Medicaid as well.

For every imagined horror story you can think of for government subsidized health care, I'll give you ten real ones I've witnessed as a Paramedic in the current system.


First off, nice plug on the paramedic. lol. I enjoyed that.
I know the "worst case scenario" is just what it is. And those cases will (hopefully) be the minority. But that isn't comforting to the family it happens to. "Don't worry folks. Sure, daddy is dead...but rest assured, MOST people don't get lost in the system."






Would you feel that way if you you had no insurance or access to health care at all? Somehow I doubt it.

I'll repeat the most important part of the Clinton plan: If you're already insured, IT WOULDN'T EFFECT YOU AT ALL. You'd have the same coverage you have now. All it does is mandate government subsidized insurance for those with no other alternative. The people that just can't afford to go to the doctor. And there are millions of them. I seem them clogging the ERs every day.


I'm not saying our current system isn't broken either. Far from it. I just wonder how much of our support of this type of plan comes from "Please God, give us SOMETHING better than what we have" mixed with "If the government takes it over, I don't have to do anything to solve it" type of mentality our country continues to grow. We continue to get more and more complacent, and let the government take more and more over, and in doing so, take more from us.
Sure, I have insurance through my job. And under her plan it won't change. Except I will be getting taxed for something I don't get to use. But that's fine, it's better I guess than having to wait six hours in the ER and not even get seen. (Which is what happened to my wife's grandmother last week) due to the problems you said.
But here's another thought, the government has our asses in check with a lot of things now days. Now, they control your healthcare too. How long before this government gets really out of hand, which a lot of signs point to being in the not too distant future, and they can then threaten us with "if you don't do what we say, no more healthcare for you, mister disagree with us man."



As the old saying goes "The world needs ditch diggers too". And it's true. These people may have low paying jobs that me or you would consider menial, but they're still necessary. They contribute to our society, and as a civilized society, health care should be their right.

I agree with that. I really do. I don't think anyone isn't entitled to healthcare. I would love everyone to have it. I just don't know if government ran healthcare is the best option. Unfortunately, I don't know anything else that could be better. Perhaps government funded through a private insurance company that knows how to do this. I don't know...I'm just pulling things out of the air. I'm just saying, I'm leery of the government controlling such an important aspect of my life for various reasons. And I know you understand that and why. I'm not going to pitch a fit and bitch and moan about the government health care. Nor will I jump up and down and hail it as a panacea...I'll watch and see what happens before I condemn or congratulate.

[chalupa]

Hey, at least it's not multiversal health care.

Health care in the 5th dimension presents certain logistical problems, particularly the problem of not being able to determine the patient's actual location.

[drahkcorjc]

Health care in the 5th dimension presents certain logistical problems, particularly the problem of not being able to determine the patient's actual location.

Well, if the patient needs healthcare that badly, then damnit, he'll figure out inter-dimensional travel.

[Bergs]

This issue angers me like few others. We'll support every chronically unemployed crackhead and junkie with welfare and Medicaid. We'll give billions EVERY YEAR to Israel, a country that spies on us and has actually murdered our sailors in the past. We have money to throw at phony wars and every third world nation that has it's hand out as well as ridiculously unnecessary pork barrel projects. But suggest subsidizing basic healthcare for the working poor, and people will fight you tooth and nail. I just don't understand that. We're the richest nation in the world, and I believe that if you're a productive member of our society willing to work hard to support your family, you and your children should be able to go to the fucking doctor when you're sick, even if you make the minimum wage. I have no idea how people could be against this.

As the old saying goes "The world needs ditch diggers too". And it's true. These people may have low paying jobs that me or you would consider menial, but they're still necessary. They contribute to our society, and as a civilized society, health care should be their right.

I agree with all those examples of criminal wastefulness on the part of our government. They should all be stopped immediately, but they are really irrelevant to this conversation. The concept of universal healthcare simply strikes me as the climax of this dispicable entitlement system. We have set up an absurd entitlement program, through countless government initiatives, that have essentially encouraged people to live beyond their means. You say the working poor "can't afford" healthcare. I say that many of them CHOOSE not to pay for it because they would rather pay for something else. It sucks to be poor. I don't think anybody would ever dispute that, yet at the same time, we shrug when poor people fail to budget what little money they have, and then expect the rest of society to pick up the bill for their shortcomings. The idea that every joe shmo who chooses to spend his money on something else deserves, by right, to be supported by the rest of society is just infuriating.

You make an excellent point that society as a whole suffers when people go to the emergency room, or when they end up on other government entitlement programs because of their medical actions or lack thereof, and, unfortunately, in the end it might be more efficient for us to do what you are proposing. However, healthcare is not a right and should never be labeled as one. You cannot ever have a right to a service.

[Spike Lee]

I agree with all those examples of criminal wastefulness on the part of our government. They should all be stopped immediately, but they are really irrelevant to this conversation. The concept of universal healthcare simply strikes me as the climax of this dispicable entitlement system. We have set up an absurd entitlement program, through countless government initiatives, that have essentially encouraged people to live beyond their means. You say the working poor "can't afford" healthcare. I say that many of them CHOOSE not to pay for it because they would rather pay for something else. It sucks to be poor. I don't think anybody would ever dispute that, yet at the same time, we shrug when poor people fail to budget what little money they have, and then expect the rest of society to pick up the bill for their shortcomings. The idea that every joe shmo who chooses to spend his money on something else deserves, by right, to be supported by the rest of society is just infuriating.

You make an excellent point that society as a whole suffers when people go to the emergency room, or when they end up on other government entitlement programs because of their medical actions or lack thereof, and, unfortunately, in the end it might be more efficient for us to do what you are proposing. However, healthcare is not a right and should never be labeled as one. You cannot ever have a right to a service.

Healthcare isn't a right? Simply because people decide to purchase other things does not mean they are not deserving of healthcare.

In a world of just plain enterprise and economics that line of reasoning can be held, but that is not the consistant view people have of the world. And it is unfair that people be forced to live in such a world where you have to look at things in an opportunity cost frame of mind. In fact, we dont have to view the world like that. Healthcare goes beyond a service. Healthcare is a vital part of life. And those are things we are entitled to. Life, liberty and the persuit of happyness.

[droogsteve]

But here's another thought, the government has our asses in check with a lot of things now days. Now, they control your healthcare too. How long before this government gets really out of hand, which a lot of signs point to being in the not too distant future, and they can then threaten us with "if you don't do what we say, no more healthcare for you, mister disagree with us man."

As I said, people who are insured wouldn't be effected. So what you seem to be saying is we shouldn't give healthcare to people without it because one day the government might take it away.

I gotta say, that's a strange argument. ;)


I agree with that. I really do. I don't think anyone isn't entitled to healthcare. I would love everyone to have it. I just don't know if government ran healthcare is the best option. Unfortunately, I don't know anything else that could be better. Perhaps government funded through a private insurance company that knows how to do this. I don't know...I'm just pulling things out of the air. I'm just saying, I'm leery of the government controlling such an important aspect of my life for various reasons. And I know you understand that and why. I'm not going to pitch a fit and bitch and moan about the government health care. Nor will I jump up and down and hail it as a panacea...I'll watch and see what happens before I condemn or congratulate.


I agree 100%. It's possible that my idea may be a disaster through bureaucracy or some other reason I can't foresee. But something has to be done.

I'm looking at the phrase I just wrote "something has to be done", and it strikes me that it's used by both sides in every health care debate. People ALL agree that something has to be done. The problem is that everyone is waiting for a perfect solution which doesn't exist, so NOTHING gets done. We have to stop talking and actually fucking do something. This solution seems most reasonable because the currently insured are unaffected and the uninsured must contribute.


You say the working poor "can't afford" healthcare. I say that many of them CHOOSE not to pay for it because they would rather pay for something else. It sucks to be poor. I don't think anybody would ever dispute that, yet at the same time, we shrug when poor people fail to budget what little money they have, and then expect the rest of society to pick up the bill for their shortcomings. The idea that every joe shmo who chooses to spend his money on something else deserves, by right, to be supported by the rest of society is just infuriating.

I'm sorry Bergs, but I don't think you have a real concept of what "working poor" is.


We'll use a couple with a 10 year old daughter. They both work. Forget the minimum wage, let's say that he makes $10 an hour as a porter. His wife makes $8 an hour in Wendy's. They both work full time. That's $2880 a month before taxes. Let's say it comes to 2 grand a month after taxes. $500 a week take home.

Rent for a one bedroom apartment (the kid sleeps on the living room sofa), AT LEAST $900 a month. That leaves $1100 for the month. They both travel to work by subway, $8 a day, 5 days a week, that's $160 just to get to work, leaving $940. Babysitting while they work? Fuck it, we'll say Granny watches the kid for free, $0. Food for 3, let's say she's an incredibly smart and frugal shopper, they eat a lot of Ramen and rice and get by on $100 a week. That leaves $540 for the month. Electricity, they don't have an A/C, so let's say $75 a month, leaving $465 a month. Gas, another $40, leaving $425. A little over $105 a week. With that $105, they have to pay for clothes, school supplies, and the million other little expenses of life. Occasionally, they take the kid to the movies or buy her a toy. That's pretty much it.

Now, I just went online and got a quote for basic health insurance for a 35 year old man, his 28 year old wife (both non smokers) and their 10 year old daughter. The cheapest quote I found was $1,179.72. Please refer to their budget and show me where you would free up the $1200 for health insurance.



However, healthcare is not a right and should never be labeled as one. You cannot ever have a right to a service.

But it already IS a right, that's what people don't understand. The law explicitly says that you cannot be turned away from an ER regardless of your ability to pay. The only question is do we want to wait until people need expensive emergency care, or provide the much cheaper preventative care?

[kevinsmith]

That's a great example of someone who is deserving of the healthcare entitlement, droog. But for everyone "working poor" person you show me who deserves it, I'll show you someone who hits the bar several times a week, has enough money for cigarettes which ain't cheap, beer and what not, yet bitches about being broke.
That's why some people have a hard time swallowing socialized anything, because it's hard to accept you're supporting someone who could do better, they just choose not to. I know you bust your ass, I'm sure it would drive you nuts to pay a salary for one of your employees who loafs around. You wouldn't do it. But you have no say if your tax dollars support a loafer.
Now, before some emotional person gets all up in arms accusing me of saying all poor are like that, I know they aren't. But I see a shitload of 'em in my town who are.

It's kind of off topic, but it sort of fits in.

As for me not being affected, really? So I won't be paying for my own insurance, and also paying taxes for someone else? There's no way they could raise enough money from those who don't have enough to afford insurance to pay for the program. So they'll have to tax the middle class and up. Some people have no problem with that...I have the audacity to make a decent living so I should pay. (I mean that literally and figuratively.) Who cares that I'm paying off the debt of a business that failed due to opening it two days prior to the economic shit hole we're in now. I'm a middle class white dude, I should pay and I should be happy to do it, huh? lol.
Again, we all know our current system isn't really all that effective. And you almost sound like you think we should do something just to do something...that could lead to something worse. Who knows, I could be wrong. And I honestly hope to God I am, because I think this is going to be happening.


I like how we can be on opposite sides of a spectrum and still be civil, if not friendly. I wish more people on this forum could fucking do that. sheesh.

[Spike Lee]

So because an asshole benefits from our intentions the people who need it and wont abuse it should suffer for it? No thanks man.

[kevinsmith]

So because an asshole benefits from our intentions the people who need it and wont abuse it should suffer for it? No thanks man.

That's not necessarily what I'm saying.
What I AM saying is don't expect me to happily take it in the shorts as I watch a bunch of assholes take advantage of me.

[Spike Lee]

Assholes exist. And like the 'conservatives' say: Life is unfair.

It comes with the deal. Frankly, I believe the benefits outweigh the positives. Of course, I think the abuse is exagerrated.

[Duke Dicky]

Are we all assuming in here that universal healthcare is a carbon copy of Canadian universal healthcare? My understand is that the healthcare plans our two Democratic candidates have set forth is much different than our Canadian neighbors. For instance, and correct me if I’m wrong since I haven’t looked at the information in a while, but the only thing I see in Obama’s plan that constitutes as being universal is making all healthcare affordable and guaranteed to everyone. That means you can’t be rejected based on preexisting conditions. I personally find the entire “tax” argument to be revolting, since taxpayers pay more for needless hospitalization for runaway illnesses in our broken system, but for the penny pinchers out there I think you can all relax.

[droogsteve]

That's a great example of someone who is deserving of the healthcare entitlement, droog. But for everyone "working poor" person you show me who deserves it, I'll show you someone who hits the bar several times a week, has enough money for cigarettes which ain't cheap, beer and what not, yet bitches about being broke.
That's why some people have a hard time swallowing socialized anything, because it's hard to accept you're supporting someone who could do better, they just choose not to. I know you bust your ass, I'm sure it would drive you nuts to pay a salary for one of your employees who loafs around. You wouldn't do it. But you have no say if your tax dollars support a loafer.
Now, before some emotional person gets all up in arms accusing me of saying all poor are like that, I know they aren't. But I see a shitload of 'em in my town who are.

Of course there will be some who abuse it, but the solution is to be vigilant and merciless against the abusers, not shitcan the entire thing. For example, look at SSI disability. There's plenty of abuse, and it drives me insane that the government doesn't crack down on it. But on the other hand, it's a lifesaver for many good hardworking people. I know an HVAC mechanic who broke his back and was out of work for three years. His union benefits and his savings were exhausted in six months, and his wife's salary wasn't enough to pay the bills. The SSI disability (which he paid into for 20 years before his accident) kept this hardworking family above water.

I understand how maddening it is to see people abusing a system set up to help good people who truly NEED help, but that doesn't mean the program should be eliminated. That kind of logic reminds me of liberals who want to ban all guns because criminals abuse them. The solution is to work harder at fighting abuse and locking up the criminals.


As for me not being affected, really? So I won't be paying for my own insurance, and also paying taxes for someone else? There's no way they could raise enough money from those who don't have enough to afford insurance to pay for the program. So they'll have to tax the middle class and up. Some people have no problem with that...I have the audacity to make a decent living so I should pay. (I mean that literally and figuratively.) Who cares that I'm paying off the debt of a business that failed due to opening it two days prior to the economic shit hole we're in now. I'm a middle class white dude, I should pay and I should be happy to do it, huh? lol.

No one said that you have to be happy about it. Do you think I'm happy about my tax dollars paying for Iraq or going to Israel? I can assure you I'm not. At least with this program, your tax dollars will be going to working Americans and not hostile, ungrateful foreigners.



Again, we all know our current system isn't really all that effective. And you almost sound like you think we should do something just to do something...that could lead to something worse.

That's not true at all, I've seen many healthcare proposals that are patently terrible ideas, including Hilary Clinton's original plan when they were in the White House. I only support this one because it seems like a reasonable compromise.


I like how we can be on opposite sides of a spectrum and still be civil, if not friendly. I wish more people on this forum could fucking do that. sheesh.

Yeah, people do tend to take things too personally and actually take it as an insult when someone disagrees with them. There's no reason you can't still like and respect someone you disagree with. Hell, I disagree with my wife on several political issues, but I still love her.

Don't worry, I still love you too, but in a slightly different way....:p

Well, I gotta start getting ready, time to dress up and play Paramedic. I'm working the 8pm to 8am shift (in the pouring fucking rain), where I'll get to see all our wonderful healthcare system has to offer. ;)

[Bergs]

Healthcare isn't a right? Simply because people decide to purchase other things does not mean they are not deserving of healthcare.

In a world of just plain enterprise and economics that line of reasoning can be held, but that is not the consistant view people have of the world. And it is unfair that people be forced to live in such a world where you have to look at things in an opportunity cost frame of mind. In fact, we dont have to view the world like that. Healthcare goes beyond a service. Healthcare is a vital part of life. And those are things we are entitled to. Life, liberty and the persuit of happyness.

No, its absolutely not a right. You are absolutely entitled to a right of life, but that right of life only means that the state and, in most cases, other people are forbidden from taking your life, in the very literal meaning of the term, from you without due process of law. That does not mean you have a duty to save people, which is essentially what is healthcare. You have no duty to save people, you have no duty to protect, or serve, or help, or rescue people. Period. No individual does and society as a whole does not. The only duty that may be applied to healthcare is, if Congress established a universal healthcare system, the duty to apply the law equally, which would establish the people's access to healthcare as a matter of law, but even then, certainly not a right.

I'm sorry Bergs, but I don't think you have a real concept of what "working poor" is.

We'll use a couple with a 10 year old daughter. They both work. Forget the minimum wage, let's say that he makes $10 an hour as a porter. His wife makes $8 an hour in Wendy's. They both work full time. That's $2880 a month before taxes. Let's say it comes to 2 grand a month after taxes. $500 a week take home.

Rent for a one bedroom apartment (the kid sleeps on the living room sofa), AT LEAST $900 a month. That leaves $1100 for the month. They both travel to work by subway, $8 a day, 5 days a week, that's $160 just to get to work, leaving $940. Babysitting while they work? Fuck it, we'll say Granny watches the kid for free, $0. Food for 3, let's say she's an incredibly smart and frugal shopper, they eat a lot of Ramen and rice and get by on $100 a week. That leaves $540 for the month. Electricity, they don't have an A/C, so let's say $75 a month, leaving $465 a month. Gas, another $40, leaving $425. A little over $105 a week. With that $105, they have to pay for clothes, school supplies, and the million other little expenses of life. Occasionally, they take the kid to the movies or buy her a toy. That's pretty much it.

Now, I just went online and got a quote for basic health insurance for a 35 year old man, his 28 year old wife (both non smokers) and their 10 year old daughter. The cheapest quote I found was $1,179.72. Please refer to their budget and show me where you would free up the $1200 for health insurance.

Look, you know that I am not one to bullshit, and I know that you are not one either, but that example simply reminds me of the Bush Administration's press conference after Katrina, where apparently announcing the distribution of 10,000 blankets meant an effective response because the number is pretty. No offense, thats just what came to mind.

Secondly, I was lucky enough that I was never knowingly confronted with a healthcare disaster when I was a child and I honestly couldnt tell you if my father's job covered our family and to what extent, but the accusation that I have no familiarity with the working poor simply pisses me off. I certainly remember with great clarity the times during my childhood where I sat in my father's pick-up with my two brothers, as he did his thing on a job site while my mother worked to supplement our income as she did every day. Until my father took on a partner and borrowed money to develop his own shop when I was a teenager, we were very much the working class ourselves. So please, don't tell me I have no familiarity with the working poor or the working man or whatever.

Now as I said, I don't disagree that the subsidization of healthcare, under our current system, may benefit us in the long run, but even in your own example I can pick out where your numbers are probably off ($60 not $160 on the subway). However, disagreeing with your numbers is really irrelevant. The only rights issue with your hypothetical is the tax issue. People ought to have an absolute and unmitigated right to the product of their labor. As Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and following from that, the government essentially reserves the right to destroy the individual American. By far the most horrifying government power in my opinion. Slap that lack of income tax onto your hypothetical and that family is almost affording healthcare coverage. Throw in some state or city based inititiatives for day-care or groceries, government checks on abuse, and federally subsidized healthcare is simply inefficient and self-destructive. Perhaps I am being a bit idealistic with the income tax argument, but I think that our society and federal government would be far better off with less federal regulation of the healthcare industry.

But it already IS a right, that's what people don't understand. The law explicitly says that you cannot be turned away from an ER regardless of your ability to pay. The only question is do we want to wait until people need expensive emergency care, or provide the much cheaper preventative care?

I know what the law states as far as emergency rooms go, that doesnt mean its a right. Its only required by statute. A right is far more important and susceptible to far greater levels of protection. If the government decided to abridge the accesibility of emergency rooms, they could, they cannot do so with a right. That is the distinguishing characteristic.

BTW, I agree with kevin. I am glad we can be civil about this. The illogical level of hatred between the opposing sides in our political process is probably one of the worst things about our government.

[droogsteve]

Secondly, I was lucky enough that I was never knowingly confronted with a healthcare disaster when I was a child and I honestly couldnt tell you if my father's job covered our family and to what extent, but the accusation that I have no familiarity with the working poor simply pisses me off. I certainly remember with great clarity the times during my childhood where I sat in my father's pick-up with my two brothers, as he did his thing on a job site while my mother worked to supplement our income as she did every day. Until my father took on a partner and borrowed money to develop his own shop when I was a teenager, we were very much the working class ourselves. So please, don't tell me I have no familiarity with the working poor or the working man or whatever.

Listen, I meant no offense. But the idea that your average working poor family has a spare $1200 a month that they just don't feel like spending on healthcare is just so far removed from reality, that's the way it appeared to me.

Now as I said, I don't disagree that the subsidization of healthcare, under our current system, may benefit us in the long run, but even in your own example I can pick out where your numbers are probably off ($60 not $160 on the subway).

How do you figure? Each one buys a $4 round trip Metrocard five days a week, that's $40 a week x 4 weeks = $160. I chose that option because it's the cheapest. Weekly Metrocards are $25, which would be $200, 2 week cards are $47 a week, adding up to $188 for both of them, and monthly cards are $81, coming to $162 for both.

I have no idea where you got $60 from.


However, disagreeing with your numbers is really irrelevant. The only rights issue with your hypothetical is the tax issue. People ought to have an absolute and unmitigated right to the product of their labor. As Chief Justice Marshall said in McCulloch v. Maryland, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and following from that, the government essentially reserves the right to destroy the individual American. By far the most horrifying government power in my opinion. Slap that lack of income tax onto your hypothetical and that family is almost affording healthcare coverage. Throw in some state or city based inititiatives for day-care or groceries, government checks on abuse, and federally subsidized healthcare is simply inefficient and self-destructive. Perhaps I am being a bit idealistic with the income tax argument, but I think that our society and federal government would be far better off with less federal regulation of the healthcare industry.

I believe you're being more than a bit idealistic. More like unrealistic.

As Sgt Barnes said in Platoon: "There's the way things oughta be, and there's the way things are." I don't have the unmitigated right to the product of my labor, and neither has any other American since the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in 1913, giving Congress the power to tax income of the People.

The fact is the government spends the products of our labor on Iraq, Israel, Africa, the California Dairy Research Council, fucking PBS and a million other useless things, and no one makes a peep. Only when we talk of spending it on healthcare do people turn into tax crusaders. Again, I just don't understand that.

As for your Marshall quote, it's not being used in it's proper context. He was referring to the state of Maryland taxing the Federal government, not the People. Specifically, a tax on the Second Bank of America on banknotes from banks not chartered in Maryland. In fact, McCulloch v Maryland actually INCREASES the Federal government's power by ruling that the Constitution grants the Federal government Implied Powers, allowing them to pass laws not provided for in the Constitution's list of Express Powers. It seems odd you'd bring it up in this particular debate, as it really doesn't help your case.


I know what the law states as far as emergency rooms go, that doesnt mean its a right. Its only required by statute. A right is far more important and susceptible to far greater levels of protection. If the government decided to abridge the accesibility of emergency rooms, they could, they cannot do so with a right. That is the distinguishing characteristic.

You're getting bogged down in semantics. Yes, technically there is a difference between a right and a guarantee under the law. For example, there in no such thing as a Constitutional right to an education. Technically, if NYC (or any other city town or county) wanted to trim their budget, they could simply pass a law disbanding the public school system. But is that anywhere in the realm of possibility? Of course not.

Same with the guarantee of emergency medical treatment. Technically, could the government declare that it is no longer guaranteed? I suppose. But realistically, is there even the most minuscule chance in hell that people having heart attacks will be kicked out of ERs to die in the alley, or Paramedics will be ordered to allow car accident victims to bleed to death in the street because they have no insurance? Of course not, not in a million years.

So technically, you're correct, it is not a right. But I prefer realistic to technical, and for all intents and purposes, it is.

[Bergs]

Listen, I meant no offense. But the idea that your average working poor family has a spare $1200 a month that they just don't feel like spending on healthcare is just so far removed from reality, that's the way it appeared to me.

I have no doubt that there are people who fit that discription, but whenever I hear the usual number of 47 million or so Americans without healthcare, I immediately wonder how many actually fit that description, how many of them qualify for medicaid, and how many of the others simply arent paying for a service out of choice.

And sorry, don't remember how I came up with that number, I am terrible at math, so I may have just screwed up.


I believe you're being more than a bit idealistic. More like unrealistic.

As Sgt Barnes said in Platoon: "There's the way things oughta be, and there's the way things are." I don't have the unmitigated right to the product of my labor, and neither has any other American since the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in 1913, giving Congress the power to tax income of the People.

The fact is the government spends the products of our labor on Iraq, Israel, Africa, the California Dairy Research Council, fucking PBS and a million other useless things, and no one makes a peep. Only when we talk of spending it on healthcare do people turn into tax crusaders. Again, I just don't understand that.

Why am I being unrealistic? Why is my ought any less legitimate than yours? Mine is actually more realistic, because giving federal tax money back to individual Americans and allowing the state governments to figure out their own healthcare plans (like MA has already done) actually approaches a solutions and an end to a dilemma, whereas handing out federal money just ignores the laws of scarcity and is analgous to putting a band-aid over a gaping abdominal wound. As I am sure you are aware, the Board of Insurance Commissioners in NYS has recently stated that medical malpractice insurance premiums may be increased to as much as $50,000 as early as this summer. That will drive countless doctors out of business including my mother's employer. Already we face a situation where specialists cannot afford insurance premiums and thus many medical students choose not to enter cardiology or neurology or what have you. And then we sit around and bitch and wonder why specialized procedures are running at absurd rates! Its is simply the laws of scarcity destroying us. We need reform in certain areas of medical malpractice, particularly in the realm of expert witnesses, where a podiatrist is considered qualified to give an expert opinion regarding neuro-surgery, and if the federal government should do anything, it should be to enact legislation pursuant to the commerce clause, to rein in the insurance companies that are corrupting the system. Throwing federal money at individuals will solve nothing.


As for your Marshall quote, it's not being used in it's proper context. He was referring to the state of Maryland taxing the Federal government, not the People. Specifically, a tax on the Second Bank of America on banknotes from banks not chartered in Maryland. In fact, McCulloch v Maryland actually INCREASES the Federal government's power by ruling that the Constitution grants the Federal government Implied Powers, allowing them to pass laws not provided for in the Constitution's list of Express Powers. It seems odd you'd bring it up in this particular debate, as it really doesn't help your case.


The attorneys in the DC Gun case are using Casey v. Planned Parenthood, an abortion case, as one of several cases asserting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Just because a court case says one thing doesnt mean it can't say others.

While your synopsis is correct, you are not fully examining the context of that specific statement. Firstly, Marshall's opinion on taxation is a supremacy issue that is distinct and seperate from the implied powers issue. The two issues have no bearing on one another other than the implied powers issue settled that the bank was constitutional. Had the taxation controversy involved an institution established through the enumerated powers, such as a court, the result would have been the same on that issue.

Secondly, in full, Marshall stated that An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. A question of constitutional power can hardly be made to depend on a question of more or less.

Simply put, the taxation power is a question of yes or no, as a constitutional question is cannot be regulated down to what rate. I am not one of those lunatics arguing that the Constitution forbids an income tax. Obviously the 16th Amendment settles that question as the text of the Constitution cannot both forbid and grant a federal power. My argument is only that in the interest of the individual liberty, the federal government ought not have that power because it is fully capable of taxing the individual beyond a limit that he can bear and into financial insolvency. That is a frightening proposition.

You're getting bogged down in semantics. Yes, technically there is a difference between a right and a guarantee under the law. For example, there in no such thing as a Constitutional right to an education. Technically, if NYC (or any other city town or county) wanted to trim their budget, they could simply pass a law disbanding the public school system. But is that anywhere in the realm of possibility? Of course not.

I am not bogged down in semantics. Federalism is certainly not semantics. NYC couldnt do that because in the New York State Constitution the legislature must provide for a system of common schools in which all the children of the state may be educated. It is a right under a state constitution. Its certianly not one under the federal constitution.

Same with the guarantee of emergency medical treatment. Technically, could the government declare that it is no longer guaranteed? I suppose. But realistically, is there even the most minuscule chance in hell that people having heart attacks will be kicked out of ERs to die in the alley, or Paramedics will be ordered to allow car accident victims to bleed to death in the street because they have no insurance? Of course not, not in a million years.

Certainly not the same. No doctor would allow a heart attack patient to die because they can't pay because it would violate their ethics and arguably the hippocratic oath. But why on earth should statute require a hospital to see every asshole who treats the emergency rooms as a physician's office? It shouldn't and thats why its not a right.

[painfulogic]

It is hilarious people see things in immediatenesses.

If we let someone die in the street, that is wrong. If we let someone slowly die from cancer, that is right.

[Bergs]

The laws of scarcity and the concern that throwing federal money at individuals will solve nothing as the insurance industry continues to drive doctors out of business, thereby jacking up the costs of heathcare on everyone is anything but immediateness.

[painfulogic]

The laws of scarcity

Scarcity is not the issue in the U.S., greed is.

[Mojoe77]

Universal health care is bullshit. What's next, universal car insurance? Universal home insurance? Do I have to pay for someone else's funeral, too? Fuck that.

Go up to a liberal and ask them if they will pay for your $20 copayment right now. If they say "No", which, I predict, will happen 9/10 times, then their whole reasoning for Universal Health Care is gone. Fuck liberals, fuck socialism. Get a job, health insurance, and take care of yourself and stop depending on the government to babysit you.

[Bergs]

Um, no. Scarcity controls everything in an economy and what you call greed is directly tied into scarcity. When specialists are driven out of business or discouraged from entering a field because of the costs of operating a practice, the cost of specialized procedures increases because fewer doctors are available to preform more procedures and it becomes less economically viable to perform that procedure.

[Sketcher]

I would as well. If done right it would allow for the best of both worlds.

Personally I think the fear mongering of socialized medicine is rather foolish, we have no issue with socialized highways, education, space exploration and military.

I beg to differ. We have a huge problem with socialized education in this country and IMO, most of our funding of space exploration is wasted money. As for highways, haven't you been paying attention to our huge infrastructure problem over the past few years? Everything the federal government touches turns to shit. When will people learn that?

[kevinsmith]

I never saw that you replied to me...I missed this thread for a week somehow. I'm observant. :rolleyes:

Of course there will be some who abuse it, but the solution is to be vigilant and merciless against the abusers, not shitcan the entire thing. For example, look at SSI disability. There's plenty of abuse, and it drives me insane that the government doesn't crack down on it. But on the other hand, it's a lifesaver for many good hardworking people. I know an HVAC mechanic who broke his back and was out of work for three years. His union benefits and his savings were exhausted in six months, and his wife's salary wasn't enough to pay the bills. The SSI disability (which he paid into for 20 years before his accident) kept this hardworking family above water.


That's right....we need to be beyond vigliant to ensure people aren't abusing the system. Unfortunately, that's going to cost addtional dollars that don't actually go into health care. How much of every dollar taxed will actually go in to health care as opposed to administrative functions, such as this one.
This will also likely be some of that red tape that scares me, as people in actual need will be delayed care as some mindless beaurocrat spends six weeks making sure I'm not trying to scam the government.



I understand how maddening it is to see people abusing a system set up to help good people who truly NEED help, but that doesn't mean the program should be eliminated. That kind of logic reminds me of liberals who want to ban all guns because criminals abuse them. The solution is to work harder at fighting abuse and locking up the criminals.


Ya got a point there. I've always said...the gun isn't the problem, the reason the guy WANTS to shoot people is the problem. But we only attack the "weed", never the "root"




No one said that you have to be happy about it. Do you think I'm happy about my tax dollars paying for Iraq or going to Israel? I can assure you I'm not. At least with this program, your tax dollars will be going to working Americans and not hostile, ungrateful foreigners.


K, but, what are the odds of me not having to pay into this system because I already have insurance through work? I'm not paying twice for insurance, one of which I don't eve get to use. Kinda sucks.
I had more I wanted to say on this...but I forgot as I read the rest of the thread...




That's not true at all, I've seen many healthcare proposals that are patently terrible ideas, including Hilary Clinton's original plan when they were in the White House. I only support this one because it seems like a reasonable compromise.

Again, I really do hope this works. It just scares the bejesus out of me.




Yeah, people do tend to take things too personally and actually take it as an insult when someone disagrees with them. There's no reason you can't still like and respect someone you disagree with. Hell, I disagree with my wife on several political issues, but I still love her.
Actually, I"m quite apalled at the fact that you have the temerity to disagree with me, you monkey wrench twisting, CPR giving son of a bitch!
Touch me.







BTW, I agree with kevin. I am glad we can be civil about this. The illogical level of hatred between the opposing sides in our political process is probably one of the worst things about our government.

The poliarization of the parties, and the "risk" of "losing" on an issue is tearing this country apart.



Scarcity is not the issue in the U.S., greed is.


I'm going to say it's a combination of what you're saying, and what Berg is saying, but more of what Berg is saying.
I've used this example before.
Think of a med student. He has to go through college. Let's say he's going to a lesser college and had a scholarship, so he's only paying $10,000 a year. Pretty darn conservative. But he's $40,000 in debt. Now, he has to go medical school. But before that, he has to apply, and it costs money to apply. I've been told like almost $2,000 for each school to which you apply, after trips for interviews or whatever. So again, we'll say one school, he get's in. That's $42,000 in the hole. NOW he has four years of med school. Not cheap. Minimu $20,000 per year. So now he's $120,000 in the hole. Again, conservative numbers. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, your average student owers between $100,000 and $135,000, with many owing in the neighborhood o $200,000. That's a lot of money just for schooling.
And when they're finally done, they're working shit jobs that don't pay much yet, and they have debt out the ass. Add in their cost of malpractice insurance because we're such a litigous society, run on average depending on state, anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 per year. The average I saw was around $100,000.
A lot of what we get charged for medical care doesn't actually even go in the doctor's pocket. Yet, a lot of doctors, as we see, make damn good oney. I'll tell you what though, the fucking deserve it most of them. Years of school that put them in massive debt before they could even start working. Ridiculous insurance costs because we'l sue them if they dare be wrong, and then the fact that we expect them to be all but infallible, known text books upon textbooks of stuff withou ever being human. Fuck that, no thanks.
And we wonder why many states don't have enough doctors. Many states are short on doctors because they are lax in lawsuit regulations and let people sue for anything.

[bergshadow]

While we're at it, may as well remind ourselves of the basic situation: The US has the worst outcome statistics, the highest rate of untreated and worsening medical issues among its citizenry, and the highest socialized costs of poor medical care delivery, of any First World health care system,

and pays twice as much per citizen for that achievement as the average First World system.

The US system is also, btw, comparatively slow - actual wait times for most care are longer than those in France or (last I checked) Canada, for example.

These are not theoretical systems that might work better than the US system. They are functioning systems of medical care that deliver better care for less money to more people than the US system does.

We are already paying for the red tape, the bureaucracy (big US insurance companies each have huge duplicate office staffs, much larger than Medicare's per "customer", and highly paid ones; and every hospital and clinic in the country has to have a staff of very competent and expensive people to handle the insurance companies), the dumb government regulations (Medicare cannot negotiate for volume discounts on drug prices ), the consequences of poor care delivery, and so forth.

The essential fact, visible here on this forum as elsewhere, is that the US has the only educated, competent, First World citizenry who are willing to pay twice as much for medical care, endure substandard delivery and complicated hassles in reception, accept common tragedy and side effect among their neighbors, and even risk losing care for themselves, in order to deny it to the undeserving.

If there is a meaner, more shortsighted, downright stupider political position among the citizenry of a First World democracy on this planet, I can't think of it offhand.