debate on universal access to health care

I'm noticing a trend here.

Jules is posting factual information from a wide variety of sources. Others are firing back anecdotes Op-Ed pieces from, of all places, the American Thinker.

Yeah, in a debate between the CDC, NIH, & WHO vs some cheeto-stained blogger typing furiously from his momma's basement.

I know arguing from authority is a fallacy, but let's get real here: y'all are arguing against imperical evidence with cocktail napkins.

Let's take a look at American Thinker's first bullet point, shall we:

"Patients Lose the Right To Decide What Treatment They'll Receive"

Like we've got a choice now? 80% of all medically-created bankruptsies involve patients WHO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE!!!

Why is that? Please feel free to posit your ideas, factually based or not.
 
Cackalacka said:
Why is that? Please feel free to posit your ideas, factually based or not.
Click to expand...


Let me provide you with the rest of those FACTS that you conveniently left out........

" In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work."

So should there also be a national "AFLAC" plan to replace those monies lost when someone loses income from work thereby resulting in their inability to pay their bills, i.e. house, car payment etc?

So, even without high medical bills, income loses from lost time at work will result in bankruptcy. How many of us can pay our bills missing several months from work?
 
Tom Tom said:
Cackalacka said:
Why is that? Please feel free to posit your ideas, factually based or not.
Click to expand...


Let me provide you with the rest of those FACTS that you conveniently left out........

" In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work."

So should there also be a national "AFLAC" plan to replace those monies lost when someone loses income from work thereby resulting in their inability to pay their bills, i.e. house, car payment etc?

So, even without high medical bills, income loses from lost time at work will result in bankruptcy. How many of us can pay our bills missing several months from work?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think a lot of people can. An important part of money management is saving up enough cash to get you through missing several months of work. Even people who don't do this can usually borrow against their retirement plans, or find other ways to scrape by. It certainly doesn't always lead to bankruptcy.

But even for those who can't get by for very long, I don't see what your point is. If someone loses their job, can't get a loan, can't pay their bills, and loses their insurance just when they needed it most, now they're on the hook for tens or hundreds of thousands in medical bills even though they've been paying insurance premiums for years. It does happen. Are you trying to say having inexpensive health insurance available that's not tied to their employment wouldn't help people in that situation?
 
I think it's interesting that conservatives only care about America being number one when it comes to military force. When we're getting beat by every other Western nation in making health care available to its citizens, even though we're spending twice as much as any of them, it's like, "Who cares?"

AMERICA WE'RE NUMBER THIRTY-SEVEN! YEAH!
 
I looked up the
julesa said:
[Do you really think US health care is as good as or better than any other nation? LOL you have some reading to do:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf
The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than rates in most other developed countries. The relative
position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates,
appears to be worsening. In 2004, the United States ranked 29th in the world in infant mortal-
ity, tied with Poland and Slovakia. Previously, the United States’ international ranking in infant
mortality was 12th in 1960 and 23d in 1990.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hmm, the first claim I bothered to look up is false. The OECD warns against comparing numbers on infant mortality due to the way the numbers are collected. Apples and oranges. I'm not going to waste my time on the rest of your claims.

I agree with Bob's original post that our government is for sale. I believe that favoritism in our government needs to be fixed before increased governent would even have a chance at working. The government needs to be limited to its essential functions, otherwise we get cut-throat mob rule and slavery.
 
That wasn't me comparing infant mortality rates, it was the CDC -- I was quoting their report. Yes, there are some differences in the way infant mortality is counted. The most important factor is not the absolute numbers -- it's the changes in those numbers. The absolute number is less important than the fact that we've gone from a leader in infant mortality rates thirty or forty years ago to falling far behind many other western industrialized nations.

Likewise with the other quotes I posted, I'm not asking you to take what I say on faith, I'm posting links to scientific studies. The last two are compresensive health care performance studies, which included many other factors besides infant mortality. They were done by the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund. If they think infant mortality is a factor worth taking into consideration, I'm going to go with that.
 
Our government is dominated by favoritism. Washington is for sale. Increasing the government's perview is just putting more up for sale. If history shows us anything, its that the task of keeping government successfully focused on protecting individual rights spends every bit of eternal vigilence that a society has. Asking more of a government is a fool's bargain, you end up with mob rule and slavery.

The most important thing a government can do is protect rights. If that is left undone, we will never achieve the prosperity required to even pay for socialized medicine. All the things that are screwed up about our health care system can be traced back to laws and regulations that distort incentives and prevents the free market from addressing needs. Instead of protecting rights, we are harnessing the government to violate them.
 
i just read in NEWSWEEK that americans save 12% of GDP
the Chinese SAVE 54%!
They say china has little or no public benefits, so citizens save more for emergencies! 54%! WOW!
Whan an idea! From China, no less!
 
gogo said:
Our government is dominated by favoritism. Washington is for sale. Increasing the government's perview is just putting more up for sale. If history shows us anything, its that the task of keeping government successfully focused on protecting individual rights spends every bit of eternal vigilence that a society has. Asking more of a government is a fool's bargain, you end up with mob rule and slavery.

The most important thing a government can do is protect rights. If that is left undone, we will never achieve the prosperity required to even pay for socialized medicine. All the things that are screwed up about our health care system can be traced back to laws and regulations that distort incentives and prevents the free market from addressing needs. Instead of protecting rights, we are harnessing the government to violate them.
Click to expand...

Which is why every other western industrialized nation in the world is a cruel impovershed dictatorship of enslavement? That's where you were going with that, right?

PS - I'm not in favor of socialized medicine either. I think a blended single-payer system with private insurance available to cover what the government doesn't is the best way to go. Having the government own all the hospitals and employ all the doctors is too much, in my opinion. But the Brits seem mostly OK with that setup. Their country hasn't collapsed quite yet.
 
Ya, I guess the Soviet Union was good until it collapsed.
 
Paved roads, clean air, safe water, basic health care. Affordable food and shelter. Come on! We live in the worlds richest country. There should be some minimal for all.
 
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?
 
gogo said:
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?
Click to expand...

Man, you are so right on this one. This did not even occur to me.

What do they say, the only two things you can not avoid is Taxes and Death. Stop paying your taxes and the government will come in and wipe you out, take everything you have and throw you in jail. I was thinking about this in my case and other peoples cases like mine.

What if you make a limited income and do not have any extra money the government wants in the way of taxes for socialized health care? Are they going to say tough, pay up or get your assets taken away from you, go to jail? Would a person be forced to cut back on rent, food, utilities... to pay the government forced health care bill that you would get in the way of higher taxes?

Gun to the head is right. :(

Deron.
 
gogo said:
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?
Click to expand...

Have you seen Red Dawn? I think you would love this movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/
 
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?
Click to expand...

Its called a logical extreme and I use it to illustrate the point. I notice that haven't argued against the point.
 
gogo said:
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?
Click to expand...

Its called a logical extreme and I use it to illustrate the point. I notice that haven't argued against the point.
Click to expand...

Whatever you want to call it. Logical extreme, hyperbole, exaggeration. All fine with me. I don't even disagree with you. The only point worth arguing I see is how you choose to define "absolute minimum."
 
One more thing: If you want to get all dramatic about jack-booted government thugs taking away your tax dollars at gunpoint, doesn't it make you angry that the US government is ALREADY spending more tax money for health care (medicare, medicaid, etc) per citizen than almost all of the western industrialized nations are spending to provide health care to all their citizens? Doesn't that piss you off? I don't mean per citizen who's collecting medical benefits. Per citizen, period. Each US taxpayer ALREADY pays more taxes to the government that's spent on health care than each Canadian taxpayer pays in taxes spent on health care. And the Canadian taxpayers don't have to buy health insurance!

So if a government can take over providing basic health care to all it's citizens, and through leveraging purchasing power and economies of scale, actually provide it for LESS TAX MONEY than we're spending now just for the oldest and poorest, wouldn't you be happier? Your jack-booted government thugs are mugging you for less money, AND the government provides you with free basic health care. It won't happen right away in the US, but it could happen. Take a look at the numbers. Look at how much Canada spends per citizen, and how much the US spends per citizen. I linked to them and posted them earlier in this thread, multiple times.

It is possible. I know it's unbelievable, but it's possible. How? US health care is simply that inefficient right now. Seriously. We are getting our asses handed to us on a platter in health care efficiency, by every other western industrialized nation.
 
julesa said:
So if a government can take over providing basic health care to all it's citizens, and through leveraging purchasing power and economies of scale, actually provide it for LESS TAX MONEY
Click to expand...


Less Money???

You can not possibly believe that?
 
Tom Tom said:
julesa said:
So if a government can take over providing basic health care to all it's citizens, and through leveraging purchasing power and economies of scale, actually provide it for LESS TAX MONEY
Click to expand...


Less Money???

You can not possibly believe that?
Click to expand...

It won't happen overnight, but our health care system is so unbelievably inefficient right now, yes, it is possible. We are spending more than twice what most other industrialized nations are spending. I don't believe we're more than twice as sick. Do you?

Edited to add: keep in mind the figures in the charts below include both government spending on health care and private spending on health care.

Lemme dig up the charts again...

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pqVgDLeO6WJ1Epmhi4w3rXg

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
LEvsSpend2_75.gif

cost_longlife75.gif
 
What Jules' graphs say.

Also:

gogo wrote:
The government holds a gun to your head to collect taxes. I'd like to keep the list of things done by the government to an absolute minimum. Can't the rest be done on a voluntary pay-for-what-you-get basis? Where's the need for the gun to the head?

Its called a logical extreme and I use it to illustrate the point. I notice that haven't argued against the point.
Click to expand...

I'd like to keep said list of 'things done by the government' to not include maiming Iraqi children, but that ship has sailed, too.

Is that a strong enough argument?
 
deronmoped said:
Capitalism keeps things in balance. The further you get away from it the more skewed things become.

Take San Diego's city run water supply. Under this government run system they ration water instead of increasing supply to meet the needs of the people.

Take San Diego's electrical supply. Under this government run system they ration electricity instead of increasing supply to meet the needs of the people.

Californians vote against any type of new power generation.
Where would you get the additional water so you can grow your lush green lawn in the drought?
Click to expand...
 
from Thomas Sowell-

What is both dangerous and mindless is rushing a massive new medical care scheme through Congress so fast that members of Congress do not even have time to read it before voting on it. Legislation that is far less sweeping in its effects can get months of hearings before Congressional committees, followed by debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with all sorts of people voicing their views in the media and in letters to Congress, while ads from people on both sides of the issue appear in newspapers and on television.


If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can't it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?


The obvious answer is that the administration doesn't want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can't wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the "stimulus" package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.
 
Tom Tom said:
from Thomas Sowell-
If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can't it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?
Click to expand...

The various proposals that have been under consideration in Congress for the past several months are all available online for reading, for those who don't mind reading. Seems like they can stand the light of day, after all:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
I haven't seen anyone pushing for a vote yet. As far as I can tell, they're still reviewing that bill, and there are a couple other ones that haven't gotten nearly as much press.

You didn't respond to my earlier posts. What do you think about the fact that we're spending twice what most other western nations are spending, even though most of those nations have universal coverage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top