Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Is Healthcare a Right?

Sep 14, 2009#1

Fun Size

I'm not putting this under the political thread because I don't think it's an inherently political question. A lot of debate lately, however, has cited healthcare as a basic human right, and I want to know how you guys feel about it. Forget political posturing and agendas for a moment and consider just that question.

In an effort to try and curtail this from becoming a standard red vs. blue debate, I will announce ahead of time that anyone answering in terms of a political parties agenda is pre-emptively a douchebag.

Sep 14, 2009#2

sixpackshaker

Not so sure about it as a right. But making yourself and your share holders fabulously wealthy on other people's misery is just inherently wrong headed.

Sep 14, 2009#3

Krisken

I think basic, preventative healthcare should be treated as a right.

Sep 14, 2009#4

Covar

wow. a healthcare topic. yea this won't turn political. :rolleyes:

to answer your question: no. Although when doctors start breaking their Hippocratic oaths and refuse treatments to those who need it, let me know, and this will become a viable question to ask.

Health Insurance != Healthcare.

Sep 14, 2009#5

Allen, who is Quiet

judging by the debate, I'd say it's a left

Sep 14, 2009#6

Fun Size

I didn't say it wouldn't turn political, but I think we waste a lot of time debating policy, whereas this seems to be the heart of the debate and I never hear anyone give reasons for one argument or another. I hear yes and no, but nothing beyond that, which I think is interesting. Not useful, but interesting.

Sep 14, 2009#7

The Lovely Boehner

Yes.

Sep 14, 2009#8

Krisken

Fun Size said:
I didn't say it wouldn't turn political, but I think we waste a lot of time debating policy, whereas this seems to be the heart of the debate and I never hear anyone give reasons for one argument or another. I hear yes and no, but nothing beyond that, which I think is interesting. Not useful, but interesting.

Sep 14, 2009#9

JCM

Fun Size said:
I'm not putting this under the political thread because I don't think it's an inherently political question. A lot of debate lately, however, has cited healthcare as a basic human right, and I want to know how you guys feel about it. Forget political posturing and agendas for a moment and consider just that question.

In an effort to try and curtail this from becoming a standard red vs. blue debate, I will announce ahead of time that anyone answering in terms of a political parties agenda is pre-emptively a douchebag.

I believe its a right, and every country I lived in, but for the US, gave its people the option between public and private.

Sep 14, 2009#10

GasBandit

No, it's not a right. That it is so important to life changes nothing. Food and shelter are not a "right" either. Health care, much like food and shelter, is the end product of someone else's time and expense (and have you seen the cost of med school and malpractice insurance?).

To claim that you have a "right" to someone else's time and expense regardless of your ability to pay for it is nothing short of larceny.

Sep 14, 2009#11

Chazwozel

Covar said:
wow. a healthcare topic. yea this won't turn political.

to answer your question: no. Although when doctors start breaking their Hippocratic oaths and refuse treatments to those who need it, let me know, and this will become a viable question to ask.

Health Insurance != Healthcare.

Health insurance is what lets you afford healthcare. So, currently, yes, health insurance = healthcare. The better your insurance, the better your healthcare.

Yes, healthcare is a societal basic right. The whole over compassing goal of developing and maintaining an ordered societal structure is protection. Whether it is protection from the elements in terms of power sources, protection from each other via law, or protection from starvation. Healthcare is one of those things that is a granted right to human beings living in a society. It has been this way since pre-history from witch doctors to shaman to priests to modern medicine, there is always someone in the society responsible for the health of it's citizens.

Sep 14, 2009#12

Drachenherz

*grabs some popcorn and waits till the heavy flaming begins to start*

:popcorn:

Sep 14, 2009#13

Chazwozel

GasBandit said:
No, it's not a right. That it is so important to life changes nothing. Food and shelter are not a "right" either. Health care, much like food and shelter, is the end product of someone else's time and expense (and have you seen the cost of med school and malpractice insurance?).

To claim that you have a "right" to someone else's time and expense regardless of your ability to pay for it is nothing short of larceny.

Yes...and in a magical thing called a society (you know that concept that people work together for a greater individual benefit) the time and expenses of practicing medicine are well rewarded...

Sep 14, 2009#14

GasBandit

Chazwozel said:
Whether it is protection from the elements in terms of power sources

Electricity is not a right either.

protection from each other via law

Laws are there to protect your rights. Even without laws, you still have your rights, although they will probably be violated.

, or protection from starvation.

And, as I mentioned before, food is not a right either, and you can't pull the "society since prehistory" thing on that one either.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------

Chazwozel;254569][quote=GasBandit said:
No, it's not a right. That it is so important to life changes nothing. Food and shelter are not a "right" either. Health care, much like food and shelter, is the end product of someone else's time and expense (and have you seen the cost of med school and malpractice insurance?).

To claim that you have a "right" to someone else's time and expense regardless of your ability to pay for it is nothing short of larceny.

Yes...and in a magical thing called a society (you know that concept that people work together for a greater individual benefit) the time and expenses of practicing medicine are well rewarded...[/quote]

It is not society's place to determine anyone's reward for the spending of their time and expense. That is a private matter between the parties involved.

Since we're pulling pre-civilization out of our bag of examples, what about cultures in which a medical practitioner who failed to save a patient was killed along with him? How rewarding was THAT career?

Sep 14, 2009#15

Chazwozel

GasBandit;254570][quote=Chazwozel said:
Whether it is protection from the elements in terms of power sources

Electricity is not a right either.

protection from each other via law

Laws are there to protect your rights. Even without laws, you still have your rights, although they will probably be violated.

, or protection from starvation.

And, as I mentioned before, food is not a right either, and you can't pull the "society since prehistory" thing on that one either.[/QUOTE]

Electricity is a serviced right. The power company won't shut you off after many, many warnings and it's illegal to do so during certain times of the year (so people don't freeze to death).

Without laws your rights will probably be violated, sure, that's why we live in things called societies. They allow us to pursue our rights. Otherwise what's the point of having government?

I know it's a hard concept for you to wrap your head around, since you're Mr. Gungho small government, privatize everything while all the fuckers who can't afford "the good life" watch and weep. By that philosophy we might as well go back to the Feudal system. Hows your fortress and gun collection coming along?

Sep 14, 2009#16

JCM

Chazwozel;254575][quote=GasBandit;254570][quote=Chazwozel said:
Whether it is protection from the elements in terms of power sources

Electricity is not a right either.

protection from each other via law

Laws are there to protect your rights. Even without laws, you still have your rights, although they will probably be violated.

, or protection from starvation.

Sep 14, 2009#17

Bonhomme Richard

Chazwozel said:
Without laws your rights will probably be violated, sure, that's why we live in things called societies. They allow us to pursue our rights. Otherwise what's the point of having government?

Sep 14, 2009#18

Chibibar

In Texas, it is illegal to shutdown someone's electricity cause without A/C people can die in some places (thus it could be consider a right)

Individual rights? no

Society? it all depends on the society.
In the U.S. (at least where I live)
A person has the right to live in a safe neighborhood cause that is what our tax dollar at work, thus laws are in place to protect you. i.e. Castle laws, laws allow you to do stuff in your home (modification, painting it, building etc etc)
Children have rights no to be abuse (and adult), not to starve them, provide education (can't neglect that) those are laws to protect their rights (not sure if that is the right word)

healtcare might not be a right in individual sense, but in society like to have their people in healthy and happy (not healthy = not so happy people) also creating debt looks bad for society etc etc.

(I am trying to avoid the political aspect as much as I can)

Sep 14, 2009#19

Chazwozel

Bonhomme Richard;254580][quote=Chazwozel said:
Without laws your rights will probably be violated, sure, that's why we live in things called societies. They allow us to pursue our rights. Otherwise what's the point of having government?

There's a big difference between society and government. One might say society promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections and government negatively by restraining our vices.

Government is only to protect rights, not define them.[/QUOTE]

Well in the case of healthcare, the government should protect that right by helping to alleviate the cost of it to those that can't afford it. Healthcare is a societal right. It's a form of protection, which is why we form societal structures to begin with.

Sep 14, 2009#20

Bonhomme Richard

So, you're saying healthcare is the right, not the level. Can someone be turned away from an ER?

Sep 14, 2009#21

Chazwozel

Bonhomme Richard said:
So, you're saying healthcare is the right, not the level. Can someone be turned away from an ER?

Not in the U.S., which is actually a big problem...

Sep 14, 2009#22

DarkAudit

Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck. The care I received when I had my heart attack easily ran 5x over my annual pay. There's no health insurance provided. So it's your position that since I couldn't pay, I should have been left to die?

I was able to write it off through paperwork proving my inability to pay the tens of thousands of dollars involved, but apparently in GB's eyes, I'm nothing more than a thief.

Sep 14, 2009#23

Bonhomme Richard

That's my point. No one is denied healthcare in the US (I can't speak for other countries). While you may not be getting the best healthcare out there, you're still getting care. In that sense, I'd say the right is protected. Now, if people are being turned away that results in death, that is violating the right to life.

Sep 14, 2009#24

Chazwozel

DarkAudit said:
Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck. The care I received when I had my heart attack easily ran 5x over my annual pay. There's no health insurance provided. So it's your position that since I couldn't pay, I should have been left to die?

I was able to write it off through paperwork proving my inability to pay the tens of thousands of dollars involved, but apparently in GB's eyes, I'm nothing more than a thief.

/sarcasm
Of course you're supposed to die, you poor motherfucker. If you can't pay for the doctor's services (to compensate for that hard time in med school), you don't deserve health care! Thief! Thief, I say!

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Bonhomme Richard said:
That's my point. No one is denied healthcare in the US (I can't speak for other countries). While you may not be getting the best healthcare out there, you're still getting care. In that sense, I'd say the right is protected. Now, if people are being turned away that results in death, that is violating the right to life.

Well the OP question was, is heathcare a right. I said yes.

Sep 14, 2009#25

Bonhomme Richard

Sorry about that Chaz, you're correct and I think agree with you. But, I'd say it's a right that's coupled with the right to life. It's only a right to maintain your right to life, but not a right in what level of quality your life is.

Sep 14, 2009#26

Krisken

Bonhomme Richard said:
Sorry about that Chaz, you're correct and I think agree with you. But, I'd say it's a right that's coupled with the right to life. It's only a right to maintain your right to life, but not a right in what level of quality your life is.

Sep 14, 2009#27

Silvanesti

Krisken;254602][quote=Bonhomme Richard said:
Sorry about that Chaz, you're correct and I think agree with you. But, I'd say it's a right that's coupled with the right to life. It's only a right to maintain your right to life, but not a right in what level of quality your life is.

Preventative healthcare saves lives and increases quality of life. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Hell, preventative healthcare even saves money, or in less crude sounding terms, resources.[/QUOTE]

Nope. It doesn't.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

(thats not to say that it couldnt, just that the way that it is used now ends up costing more)

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

DarkAudit said:
Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck.

Don't you have him blocked by now? It seems like you pop a woodie getting all angry at him.

Sep 14, 2009#28

MindDetective

I would say that health care is not an inherent human right. Electricity is not an inherent human right either (how weird would that be?) Electricity has become a societal right, though, in the sense that society has made it so prevalent that it is virtually guaranteed. There are obviously things you can do to surrender that right, though, just as you can lose your right to liberty by committing crimes. Is health care a societal right? In some countries it is but not in the U.S. I think these kinds of societal rights come along AFTER society has made something cheap and easy to access. Should it be a societal right? Fine by me but first you have to make it cheap and easy to access. You can't do that by passing laws, though.

Sep 14, 2009#29

Bonhomme Richard

But is it a right at the preventative care level? Especially when many preventative measures should just be lifestyle choices that people simply don't do.

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

MindDetective said:
I would say that health care is not an inherent human right. Electricity is not an inherent human right either (how weird would that be?) Electricity has become a societal right, though, in the sense that society has made it so prevalent that it is virtually guaranteed. There are obviously things you can do to surrender that right, though, just as you can lose your right to liberty by committing crimes. Is health care a societal right? In some countries it is but not in the U.S. I think these kinds of societal rights come along AFTER society has made something cheap and easy to access. Should it be a societal right? Fine by me but first you have to make it cheap and easy to access. You can't do that by passing laws, though.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Sep 14, 2009#30

Krisken

Silvanesti;254606][quote=Krisken;254602][quote=Bonhomme Richard said:
Sorry about that Chaz, you're correct and I think agree with you. But, I'd say it's a right that's coupled with the right to life. It's only a right to maintain your right to life, but not a right in what level of quality your life is.

Preventative healthcare saves lives and increases quality of life. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Hell, preventative healthcare even saves money, or in less crude sounding terms, resources.[/quote]

Nope. It doesn't.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

(thats not to say that it couldnt, just that the way that it is used now ends up costing more)

[/QUOTE]
Well I'll be damned. My mistake. It costs more.

Sep 14, 2009#31

figmentPez

Krisken said:
I think basic, preventative healthcare should be treated as a right.

The most basic aspects of preventative healthcare don't require insurance to pay for. Good diet, excercise, basic knowledge of health and many other things can be done without great expense.

Covar said:
Health Insurance != Healthcare.

Bingo! Anyone can get healthcare in the US. They can walk into an emergency room and get treated for whatever is wrong with them. It may take a while, it may cost more than they can afford, but they can get treated if they really need to.

Do people have a right to have their healthcare subsidized by the government is a radically different question than if healthcare is a right.

Sep 14, 2009#32

Krisken

figmentPez;254622][quote=Krisken said:
I think basic, preventative healthcare should be treated as a right.

Sep 14, 2009#33

figmentPez

Krisken;254623][quote=figmentPez;254622][quote=Krisken said:
I think basic, preventative healthcare should be treated as a right.

The most basic aspects of preventative healthcare don't require insurance to pay for. Good diet, excercise, basic knowledge of health and many other things can be done without great expense.

[/QUOTE]
Regular doctor check ups to check for things like melanoma and catch other cancers before they become incurable seems pretty important to me.[/QUOTE]

I don't consider that to be the most basic level of preventative health care. That would be more advanced preventative measures. It's also far less important to be examined by a doctor who is overworked than it is to be aware of your own health and doing what's possible to take care of yourself beyond what a doctor can do.

The more people who are knowledgeable about their own health, take the most important steps of eating right and getting a healthy amount of physical activity, the less insurance is going to cost for everyone. The more people who pay for insurance, the less it will cost. There are better ways to get people's health cared for than by just saying "let the government handle it".

Sep 14, 2009#34

Adammon

As a Canadian who is provided health care, I get access to a system that may not always work up to people's expectations, but has not bankrupted me through serious medical problems.

As for whether or not healthcare is a right, we'd have to determine what constitutes a 'right'. If we define a right as "the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.", no healthcare is not a right because it infringes on the rights of others to act of their own accord - to force a doctor to perform his services below his costs to do so would jeopardize his livelihood.

Health care, (especially universal health coverage) is a privilege, not a right; and it's a privilege that most western democracies have deemed important enough to the population that they expend significant funds to provide it. This privilege is often abused and can be taken away after enough time has passed (Yes, Canadian 'frequent flyers' can be barred from the ER). If healthcare was a right, at no time could someone be denied full and complete access to the services that they themselves deem appropriate.

Do not conflate healthcare with a right because down that way lies madness.

Consider it a privilege of living in one of the greatest countries in the world - a country who has the compassion and generosity to look after its own weakest members.

Sep 14, 2009#35

DarkAudit

Silvanesti said:
[/COLOR]

DarkAudit said:

Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck.

Click to expand...

Don't you have him blocked by now? It seems like you pop a woodie getting all angry at him.

You should have seen what I was *going* to post... O.O

GB is volunteering to start up some "death panels" of his own.

Sep 14, 2009#36

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck. The care I received when I had my heart attack easily ran 5x over my annual pay. There's no health insurance provided. So it's your position that since I couldn't pay, I should have been left to die?

I was able to write it off through paperwork proving my inability to pay the tens of thousands of dollars involved, but apparently in GB's eyes, I'm nothing more than a thief.

Ordinarily I'd say no, but for you I could make an exception

Here's a question though - why didn't you have insurance? Could you not afford it? If not, did you have medicaid? If not, why?

FYI - the logical fallacies present in your argument were:
Ad Hominem
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Pity
Misleading Vividness
Relativist Fallacy
Straw Man

You did not have the "right" to that health care, but it was provided to you through something that is a lot more common in our society than statists tend to acknowledge - charity.

Sep 14, 2009#37

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
You did not have the "right" to that health care, but it was provided to you through something that is a lot more common in our society than statists tend to acknowledge - charity.

I think emergency care is a different ballgame in that it could be considered a right to life issue. You could argue that watching someone die when you have the ability to save them is similar to simply killing them. Emergency care is so much narrower than all of health care, though, and I don't think you can extrapolate that single issue (which is really a right to life issue, as I said) to all other forms of health care.

Sep 14, 2009#38

Chazwozel

GasBandit;254639][quote=DarkAudit said:
Riddle me this GB, you self-righteous fuck. The care I received when I had my heart attack easily ran 5x over my annual pay. There's no health insurance provided. So it's your position that since I couldn't pay, I should have been left to die?

I was able to write it off through paperwork proving my inability to pay the tens of thousands of dollars involved, but apparently in GB's eyes, I'm nothing more than a thief.

Ordinarily I'd say no, but for you I could make an exception

Sep 14, 2009#39

GasBandit

MindDetective;254641][quote=GasBandit said:
You did not have the \"right\" to that health care, but it was provided to you through something that is a lot more common in our society than statists tend to acknowledge - charity.

Chazwozel said:
Oh God, do shut up.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the leftist who knows his arguments have no backing. Play him off, keyboard cat!

Sep 14, 2009#40

Chibibar

Now is here a question. I know that in the U.S. no one in the emergency room are turn away, what if doctors can diagnose (more likely nurse) to determine if it is truly emergency or not, would that reduce cost? (and turn away)

I mean some people come to the ER for legit care and some can't pay (which cause problem of where we are now) what would happen if we do turn away from none life threatening clients? These might require laws to protect hospitals from being sue.

Sep 14, 2009#41

SpecialKO

I would say that healthcare is not a "right" in the sense of a "right" being a service or agency which you are owed as a citizen/human being.

That said, I believe that a civilized society recognizes the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens have healthcare.

Sep 14, 2009#42

Chazwozel

GasBandit;254651][quote=MindDetective;254641][quote=GasBandit said:
You did not have the \"right\" to that health care, but it was provided to you through something that is a lot more common in our society than statists tend to acknowledge - charity.

Chazwozel said:
Oh God, do shut up.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the leftist who knows his arguments have no backing. Play him off, keyboard cat!

[/QUOTE]

No, it's just sad watching you pull garbage out of your ass.

Sep 14, 2009#43

AshburnerX

Health care isn't a right... but it serves the basic public interest to ensure that all of it's members are in good health. As such, it makes good sense to have a free health care option, even if it's standards aren't as high as the private field.

That being said, I don't see how we can afford a public health care option in this country without excluding a large portion of the population from it or making the standards so low as to be ineffective.

And Gas... seriously, stop parroting charity. If Charity was nearly as prevalent as you claim it to be, the US wouldn't be ethically challenged as it's become.

Sep 14, 2009#44

Chazwozel

The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.

Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care. It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could have predicted the importance of health care, would have granted that the same standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen.

I know how much Gas loves to slobber all over the 2nd Amendment. I love how he tactically likes to avoid the others.

Sep 14, 2009#45

Le Quack

Yes, healthcare is a right. Hospitals should be run by the government just like the police and fire department.

As long as the power is in the hands of the people, government is nothing to be feared.

Sep 14, 2009#46

Rob King

I have nothing new to say. Healthcare is not a right, but then again, I don't view safety from marauding hordes as an inherent right either. Both are benefits of living in a society of modern men, and they are benefits that I believe are important. But not rights.

Sep 14, 2009#47

Chazwozel

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/14/pakistan.stampede/index.html

Boy I sure do enjoy my right to grocery stores and food in the United States.

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 PM ----------

Rob King said:
I have nothing new to say. Healthcare is not a right, but then again, I don't view safety from marauding hordes as an inherent right either. Both are benefits of living in a society of modern men, and they are benefits that I believe are important. But not rights.

Society is developed as a way to protect your rights: i.e. laws and government.

Sep 14, 2009#48

GasBandit

TeKeo said:
I would say that healthcare is not a "right" in the sense of a "right" being a service or agency which you are owed as a citizen/human being.

That said, I believe that a civilized society recognizes the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens have healthcare.

One can argue the merits of provision of healthcare as being a responsibility of society. That's a perfectly valid discussion with points on both sides. But as you say, even if society has decided it has a responsibility, that doesn't make health care a right.

Chazwozel said:
No, it's just sad watching you pull garbage out of your ass.

There it is again, the default position of so many on the left. "Whether my opinions have merit or not, and whether or not I can provide logical backup for them, is irrelevant. If you do not agree with us, you will SHUT UP. But we welcome debate on the matter, really."

I'm surprised we've gone this far without DarkAudit demanding (yet again) that I be banned.

AshburnerX said:
Health care isn't a right... but it serves the basic public interest to ensure that all of it's members are in good health. As such, it makes good sense to have a free health care option, even if it's standards aren't as high as the private field.

That being said, I don't see how we can afford a public health care option in this country without excluding a large portion of the population from it or making the standards so low as to be ineffective.

And Gas... seriously, stop parroting charity. If Charity was nearly as prevalent as you claim it to be, the US wouldn't be ethically challenged as it's become.

It is prevalent, though not among all political persuasions, and of course not entirely in the narrow confines of what you mean (and what you thought I meant) by "charity." I meant it as a concept of human interaction, not as a specific tax-exempt entity for humanitarian purposes.

Chazwozel said:
The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.

To have life we must also have food. Why don't we have a right to food? To have life we must also have shelter. Why isn't there a right to shelter?

The rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not about letting YOU demand things from others, it's about preventing GOVERNMENT from TAKING things from YOU. The government cannot DEPRIVE you of life by shooting you for your political or religious beliefs, for example.

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.

That's because by imprisoning someone, the government has prevented their ability to seek medical care on their own and pay for it on their own, so they are obliged to provide and pay for it.

I know how much Gas loves to slobber all over the 2nd Amendment. I love how he tactically likes to avoid the others.

You were the one avoiding me when you just started telling me to "shut up" instead of responding to my posts. I've responded to every one you've made, without telling YOU to "shut up" even though I consider your opinions to be beyond naive and poisonous to the country, the civilization and the species. But here I am debating with you in a civil manner, while you tell me to "shut up."

To get back to the electricity thing, too - just because the government has ruled that the electric company can't turn off your electricity when it might kill you doesn't mean you have a right to electricity. Neither one of us can just march right down to the utility company and demand they start service to us, because of our "right" to electricity, with no regard to whether or not we intend to pay them for it. It only means that we have the right not to be killed.

Sep 14, 2009#49

Bowielee

Really GB, you can't possibly believe in a pure market economy as you purport. It's just plain economically ignorant to believe that a pure market economy can work for the same reason that a pure socialist economy can't work. It doesn't take into account human ambition, or lack thereof. Pure market economies will never work because the rich will do whatever it takes to get richer, and a pure socialist economy can never work because the lazy will not pick up the slack.

Deregulation is not the answer to everything, just as regulation isn't the answer to everything.

I understand the whole "rugged individualism" thing when it comes to the founding concepts of the USA, but to presume that we can survive as a country without government intervention is just plain ignorant.

Sep 14, 2009#50

GasBandit

Bowielee said:
Really GB, you can't possibly believe in a pure market economy as you purport. It's just plain economically ignorant to believe that a pure market economy can work for the same reason that a pure socialist economy can't work. It doesn't take into account human ambition, or lack thereof. Pure market economies will never work because the rich will do whatever it takes to get richer, and a pure socialist economy can never work because the lazy will not pick up the slack.

Deregulation is not the answer to everything, just as regulation isn't the answer to everything.

I understand the whole "rugged individualism" thing when it comes to the founding concepts of the USA, but to presume that we can survive as a country without government intervention is just plain ignorant.

No, I am not a proponent of anarchy. I believe government has a very important role to play. They are there to protect our rights. In fact, one of my beliefs that deviates from most of my fellow Libertarians is that I believe government also has a duty to ensure competition, even to the point of meddling in the private sector. I believe the breakup of the AT&T monopoly into the baby bells was justified, for example, and has improved our way of life incredibly. I believe in the sundering of monopolies and the breaking of Trusts, which may seem a bit in contradiction, but there it is.

Sep 14, 2009#51

Ross

Sep 14, 2009#52

Chibibar

Bowielee said:
Really GB, you can't possibly believe in a pure market economy as you purport. It's just plain economically ignorant to believe that a pure market economy can work for the same reason that a pure socialist economy can't work. It doesn't take into account human ambition, or lack thereof. Pure market economies will never work because the rich will do whatever it takes to get richer, and a pure socialist economy can never work because the lazy will not pick up the slack.

I think this is the main problem with any economic systems.

The only way to turn this around is ability to create food via food replicator

Sep 14, 2009#53

Shannow

No.

Sep 14, 2009#54

Chibibar

Shannow said:
No.

No in general? or just no to my suggestion?

The main drive in this world is money. We need money to buy stuff we need (or pay rent/payment) food, shelter, medical insurance, car, and entertainment (the basics in my mind)

If the world can renew resources and provide freely to its citizen, then some of the woe "might" go away, but then the "slackers" would probably take advantage and do nothing and reap the benefits while others will pursuit higher goals and knowledge (to invent new and cool stuff)

Sep 14, 2009#55

Chazwozel

To have life we must also have food. Why don't we have a right to food? To have life we must also have shelter. Why isn't there a right to shelter?

WIC and Habitat for Humanity much...? The government does provide for basic food and shelter needs through various welfare programs to protect those rights. Why not health care?

Sep 14, 2009#56

Shannow

Chibibar;254701][quote=Shannow said:
No.

Sep 14, 2009#57

DarkAudit

No, GB. no banning. That wouldn't be enough. Beaten into a pink ooze would be a good start, though.

I have a right to NOT DIE. You wish to deny me that right, I'll deny you of any more of that sad ixistence of yours.

Sep 14, 2009#58

Chazwozel

I consider your opinions to be beyond naive and poisonous to the country, the civilization and the species.

That's super. Meanwhile, I work in conjunction for a pharmaceutical company and a children's hospital. What do you do again that benefits the species, oh great one? Oh yeah radio D.J... You're way of logic would work great if we were a society of super efficient robots and not, you know, human beings, Rush Jr.

And believe me, I'm the last person that believes someone should get something for nothing, but you absolutely can't deny people their basic right's to health and welfare if they're part of a something that considers itself an advanced society. You say you're not an anarchist? I say bullshit.

Sep 14, 2009#59

Chibibar

Chazwozel said:
To have life we must also have food. Why don't we have a right to food? To have life we must also have shelter. Why isn't there a right to shelter?

Click to expand...

WIC and Habitat for Humanity much...?

I did enjoy my work with Habitat for humanity. They do try to provide and built shelters for people. I do try to donate when I can since I can't do hard labor anymore

(back issues)

But even with HFH and WIC, you still need money to pay for these things (upkeep, taxes, utilities, and well buying food

) of course these things are not free and bound by the generosity of its citizens who can donate time and money to these causes.

I do try to donate what I can (our work does many drives) but back of my mind hoping that it will really help people who are just in hard time and willing to get back on their feet. I hate to sponsor people who just take advantage of the system (like this one lady I know had like 6 kids and totally take advantage of the system and doing better than me and I'm working full time and paying for the house and everything on my own)

Sep 14, 2009#60

AshburnerX

DarkAudit said:
No, GB. no banning. That wouldn't be enough. Beaten into a pink ooze would be a good start, though.

I have a right to NOT DIE. You wish to deny me that right, I'll deny you of any more of that sad ixistence of yours.

Sep 14, 2009#61

DarkAudit

And since he had advance warning of the beating, that's a pre-existing condition. COVERAGE DENIED.

Sep 14, 2009#62

Shannow

AshburnerX;254714][quote=DarkAudit said:
No, GB. no banning. That wouldn't be enough. Beaten into a pink ooze would be a good start, though.

I have a right to NOT DIE. You wish to deny me that right, I'll deny you of any more of that sad ixistence of yours.

[/QUOTE]

Sep 14, 2009#63

Covar

DarkAudit said:
And since he had advance warning of the beating, that's a pre-existing condition. COVERAGE DENIED.

thank god the government doesn't run healthcare then. At least now he has option to go to another company or pay for it himself.

Sep 14, 2009#64

Andromache

best thread EVER.

also: yes.

Sep 14, 2009#65

Chibibar

Covar;254721][quote=DarkAudit said:
And since he had advance warning of the beating, that's a pre-existing condition. COVERAGE DENIED.

thank god the government doesn't run healthcare then. At least now he has option to go to another company or pay for it himself.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but if you have too many pre-existing conditions, many private health insurance don't want to take you either cause they won't make a profit out of you.

Hence it goes back to money again

Sep 14, 2009#66

Fun Size

If anyone wants a good laugh, I was actually thinking earlier how nice it was that this was a civil conversation on a subject that had not devolved into the usual vitriol that these things sometimes do.

Yeah, that was a great moment.

Sep 14, 2009#67

DarkAudit

And with me and GB gone, it makes the boards a much less interesting place.

Really, now. How much mileage can you really get out of "Shego wants to kill everyone" or "Crone wants to ignore everyone"?

Sep 14, 2009#68

Andromache

yes, because obviously, everyone but you is a one trick pony. Ass.

Sep 14, 2009#69

Rob King

Chazwozel;254681][quote=Rob King said:
I have nothing new to say. Healthcare is not a right, but then again, I don't view safety from marauding hordes as an inherent right either. Both are benefits of living in a society of modern men, and they are benefits that I believe are important. But not rights.

Sep 14, 2009#70

Adammon

DarkAudit said:
No, GB. no banning. That wouldn't be enough. Beaten into a pink ooze would be a good start, though.

I have a right to NOT DIE. You wish to deny me that right, I'll deny you of any more of that sad ixistence of yours.

I've seen some pretty retarded arguments in my time, but this one takes the retarded cake. With retarded ice cream on top.

Sep 14, 2009#71

Rob King

Everybody who's left in this thread should have a big group hug.

Sep 14, 2009#72

Chibibar

look at the bright side..... we didn't get political, just pure unadulterated flame

Sep 14, 2009#73

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Everyone should just take a step back, and take a breather. This thread is interesting, and I don't want it locked or relegated to the flame thread, for once I'd like to see everyone contribute without this turning into personal attacks.

Sep 14, 2009#74

Krisken

Fun Size said:
If anyone wants a good laugh, I was actually thinking earlier how nice it was that this was a civil conversation on a subject that had not devolved into the usual vitriol that these things sometimes do.

Yeah, that was a great moment.

Hey man, I tried. The only way it was going to stay civil was to disallow us to respond to another person's post. At least then it would only be our own opinion, not attacking someone else's.

Sep 14, 2009#75

Chibibar

BlackCrossCrusader said:
Everyone should just take a step back, and take a breather. This thread is interesting, and I don't want it locked or relegated to the flame thread, for once I'd like to see everyone contribute without this turning into personal attacks.

Agree.. I guess we should probably establish what is consider basic rights as humans.

Of course some of those rights "change" when you join a society and some of those "rights" are "altered" depending on what society you live in.

here is a perfect example.

Humans have the right to live.
But in some society, you don't have the right to live when you kill other humans.
or you have the right to live as long you contribute (i.e. old people get killed off in old society)

Sep 14, 2009#76

DarkAudit

GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

Sep 14, 2009#77

Singularity.EXE

Yes it is. People can go on and on about what the Founding Fathers wanted, what they meant, and how they wanted it implemented, but there's always one fact that seems to escape people. The Founding Fathers lived 200 fucking years ago, humanity and society has evolved and changed since then, and this retarded concept of sticking straight to the letter of men who still used fucking carrier pigeons to communicate is more then a little outdated.

As far as arguing against GB, you people have to realize this man called Terry Pratchett a "whiner" because Pratchett has been attempting to get Assisted Suicide legalized in England. The fucker seriously advocated that Pratchett "man-up" and stop complaining about euthanasia. GB's societal and political perspectives are locked in the Stone Age, there's no point in arguing with him.

Sep 14, 2009#78

Krisken

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

Yes, but it's not up to GB, is it? You know he's just trying to draw you in and make drama. Every time he can get you frothing at the mouth, he gets an erection. I say don't make him so happy.

Sep 14, 2009#79

ThatGrinningIdiot!

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

He's expressing an opinion, which gives you the chance to refute his own. It's not as though he's hell-bent on denying you rights that would prevent your existence.

Besides, for all of your disdain towards his opinions, you allow them to have great sway over your own.

Sep 14, 2009#80

Rob King

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

To be fair, 'the right to not die' is a gross oversimplification. I believe healthcare is something that everybody should have access to, but to stand on a platform of 'the right to not die,' is impossible. Everyone contributing to this thread will die eventually, and not every death will be a violation of their rights.

Perhaps 'a right to prolong one's life as long as possible' might be more reasonable. Although, I doubt GasBandit would like it any better.

Sep 14, 2009#81

DarkAudit

Still, having him run over (repeatedly) by a truck gives one a certain satisfaction.

I'd better retract what I said about Shego (and Crone, if I'm not already on the ignore list by now) and check my wallet, just in case she's still freelancing.

Sep 14, 2009#82

Chibibar

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

well here is a question (note this is NOT a personal attack)

I would assume you are productive member of society. You work, pay your dues, just can't afford medical expenses to keep you going right?

What about those member of society who just leech off the system (medical, social and financial) and reap the benefits and don't pay anything back. The problem then someone HAS to pay back or the company will go bankrupt (no free service really) I think that is the underlying problem.

Many insurance company bottom line is to make a profit. They take on many people and maybe payout 5-10% (numbers totally out of my ass) and even out with the rest of the 90% who don't have any issues and keep on paying premiums thus the insurance company makes a profit and continue in business.

If a company (someone has to foot the bill) keep paying out and not enough money going in then what? Government subsidies tend to even out, but then you have red tapes to get anything done (see military health insurance. I have lots of friends tell me stories) when you turn to the private citizens paying for it, then the price has to be low enough to AFFORD insurance.

I look up Blue Cross Blue Shield (the company I'm with) to carry my own insurance solo for basic (with high deductibles like 1000$+ or something) is like 150$ a month. that is comparable with other companies. If the government wants to make it affordable to everyone then it has to be lower than that... how low? can people afford 50$ a month? 100$ a month? then how does private insurance compete when they are asking 150$+ a month and trying to make ends meet?

Currently my insurance is paid by my work (100%) and I found out it cost them like 450$ a month (we have good policy) it would suck for ME if there is a government one that is cheaper, but harder to see a doctor. (I am community college worker so community college will try to save money and probably switch to government plan to save money in the long run)

Sep 14, 2009#83

Adammon

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

You don't have a 'right to not die'. I don't know where you're pulling that out of (actually, I do know where you're pulling that out of). You have a right not to be killed, which is something totally different.

And guess what, it's a moot point because, hey, you didn't die! Way to go guy! Congrats! OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay, and instead of it being passed on to the 300 million people around you, you were forced to bear it yourself. Guess what? In some countries, if the cost was too high, you wouldn't get the treatment period. Or they'd ship you off to the private system in the US where the quality of health care is unbeaten (Primarily because they charge what the treatment is worth)

You should be humbled by the generosity of the millions of people who are willing to give up their hard earned money to help you out in your time of need instead of worrying about what some other guy thinks he should be able to do with his money.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 PM ----------

Rob King said:
Perhaps 'a right to prolong one's life as long as possible' might be more reasonable. Although, I doubt GasBandit would like it any better.

And even that one begins to get fuzzy in cases like Terri Schiavo.

Sep 14, 2009#84

Chazwozel

Rob King;254751][quote=Chazwozel;254681][quote=Rob King said:
I have nothing new to say. Healthcare is not a right, but then again, I don't view safety from marauding hordes as an inherent right either. Both are benefits of living in a society of modern men, and they are benefits that I believe are important. But not rights.

Society is developed as a way to protect your rights: i.e. laws and government.[/QUOTE]

As far as I see it, society both establishes and protects your rights. But if it establishes your rights, if you have to ask 'is it a right' the answer is probably no.

Should it be a right? Yes. But it's up to the society to declare it so.

Or, healthcare could be a right based on the rights we've already declared. If, for example, we've declared that every citizen (or every human, for that matter) has the right to a full life, then healthcare logically follows.[/QUOTE]

Well my heath care for prisoners example fits that idea perfectly. It's similar to the 2nd amendment really. You have a right to bare arms, correct? It's implied as to what that right is for. Same with giving prisoners the right to health care, I'm sure that the founding fathers would extend that to the nations citizens, if health care back then was a practical thing to look into.

Sep 14, 2009#85

Andromache

preservation of life as humanly possible?

Sep 14, 2009#86

Chibibar

Chazwozel;254783][quote=Rob King;254751][quote=Chazwozel;254681][quote=Rob King said:
I have nothing new to say. Healthcare is not a right, but then again, I don't view safety from marauding hordes as an inherent right either. Both are benefits of living in a society of modern men, and they are benefits that I believe are important. But not rights.

(food, shelter, and medical)

Sep 14, 2009#87

DarkAudit

Adammon said:
OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

Now that's comedy. Willing. You should head to Hollywood, 'cause that's just golden.

When one night in CICU can run well past some folks' annual salary, we're waaay past willing.

Sep 14, 2009#88

Chibibar

Crone said:
preservation of life as humanly possible?

I do believe that is what most society is trying to do. Some countries promote universal healtcare (or "free" in terms of government support via taxpayers money), which would follow this idea IMO.

Sep 14, 2009#89

Chazwozel

DarkAudit;254787][quote=Adammon said:
OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

The Dark Bandit! He comes into your hospital in the middle of the night and steals your operating table!

Sep 14, 2009#90

Rob King

Chazwozel said:
Well my heath care for prisoners example fits that idea perfectly. It's similar to the 2nd amendment really. You have a right to bare arms, correct? It's implied as to what that right is for. Same with giving prisoners the right to health care, I'm sure that the founding fathers would extend that to the nations citizens, if health care back then was a practical thing to look into.

Right. See ... yeah, that makes sense.

Considering that society is the banding together of people for common benefit, I would probably argue that the right to healthcare could very easily follow from that. But all to often when we talk about rights, someone is talking about some god-given principle that says they're allowed to shoot at the neighbor's kids or something.

Chibibar said:
I am not sure if it is true or not, but currently I *heard* that some prisoners live better than poor bum on the streets (food, shelter, and medical)

Working with the Salvation Army, I've heard stuff similar to this. Someone who's homeless up here will sometimes break into a home or business in the fall, and then wait in the living room to be arrested. They shoot for a six month sentence. The penitentiary is warm, and a lot more forgiving than a St. John's winter on the streets.

Sep 14, 2009#91

DarkAudit

Chazwozel;254794][quote=DarkAudit;254787][quote=Adammon said:
OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

The Dark Bandit! He comes into your hospital in the middle of the night and steals your operating table![/QUOTE]

Gimme an EKG or the kid gets it!

Sep 14, 2009#92

Chibibar

DarkAudit;254787][quote=Adammon said:
OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

Now that's comedy. Willing. You should head to Hollywood, 'cause that's just golden.

When one night in CICU can run well past some folks' annual salary, we're waaay past willing.[/QUOTE]

Generally this is what insurance is there for. Out of personal curiosity, were you denied insurance due to previous health issue? (I saw a post earlier but wasn't sure if that was the answer to the question or fighting with GB)

I can assure you than many of us here cannot afford the full cost of many medical services if we didn't have insurance.

I think the solution would need to gear toward
1. Should medical cover everyone and free? if so, who pays for the actual cost? This is the basis of the OP to revolve if healthcare is a right or not.

2. Should everyone have health insurance instead that is affordable to any income earners, but then what about people who doesn't have a job, are they cover? but if they are not covered then emergency arise, then the cost has to be paid somewhere.

The problem with scenario 2 is that someone has to bear the cost. Hospital still incur the cost and someone has to pay for it, so will "increase" the cost for the people who CAN pay for it which pass the cost to insurance company. The insurance company doesn't want to take a loss so increase premium to their members. So the members of the insurance company get stuck with the "bill" from the uninsured people but spread over thousands if not millions of members across the nation.

so we know that this system is not perfect and well... to me kinda broken since insurance rate is so high that even working people can't afford it. What do we do? (but to answer that will get political wouldn't it?)

Sep 14, 2009#93

North_Ranger

Rrrrrooooiiiiggghhhttt.

*unzip*

*fling*

Time for a sauna thread, bitches.

Sep 14, 2009#94

JCM

Chazwozel said:
The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.

The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care.

Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care. It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could have predicted the importance of health care, would have granted that the same standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen.

I know how much Gas loves to slobber all over the 2nd Amendment. I love how he tactically likes to avoid the others.

We have a winner.

Sep 14, 2009#95

Le Quack

We should socialize hospitals!

Sep 14, 2009#96

DarkAudit

The only coverage of any sort available through work was going to eat up nearly all of the paycheck, and that was only if I worked well into overtime to do so. The choices were health insurance or food & shelter. All three wasn't an option.

Sep 14, 2009#97

crono1224

And you know if he had a heart problem he maybe able to get coverage but anything heart related would be excluded due to pre-existing condition. But of course people with jobs lucky enough to give health care or lucky enough to not have medical problems that warrant it.

Also it can easily be between 600-1000$ a month for insurance through COBRA or what ever, and that maybe way over peoples salary.

Yes i think people deserve the right to health care.

Sep 14, 2009#98

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Le Quack said:
We should socialize hospitals!

Are you high again?
----------
I know illegal immigrants are a problem in the states, should they receive free healthcare or not? Many of you would not like those whom are off the tax grid to gain the same privileges as you do, so I wonder how that scenario would be dealt with.

Sep 14, 2009#99

Le Quack

Lets give free health care to illegal immigrants. Its not in tow with party line, but I think we should

Sep 14, 2009#100

Rob King

Le Quack said:
We should socialize hospitals!

Or hospitalize socialists.

Sep 14, 2009#101

DarkAudit

Rob King;254828][quote=Le Quack said:
We should socialize hospitals!

Or hospitalize socialists.[/QUOTE]

Sep 14, 2009#102

GasBandit

Chazwozel said:
To have life we must also have food. Why don't we have a right to food? To have life we must also have shelter. Why isn't there a right to shelter?

Click to expand...

WIC and Habitat for Humanity much...? The government does provide for basic food and shelter needs through various welfare programs to protect those rights. Why not health care?

No, you're confusing entitlement with charity again. WIC, Habitat for humanity are there to help correct a problem because we as a society don't want people to starve or be homeless. But nowhere in our laws, be it in the constitution or any other document, say that we have a RIGHT to these things. If you have a right to something, you can demand it at any point. I'm glad you think I have a right to food, housing, electricity and health care. I can quit my job and just start demanding these things be provided for me.

DarkAudit said:
No, GB. no banning. That wouldn't be enough. Beaten into a pink ooze would be a good start, though.

I have a right to NOT DIE. You wish to deny me that right, I'll deny you of any more of that sad ixistence of yours.

Once again - logical fallacies in your post:
Ad Hominem
Straw Man
Appeal to Emotion

Furthermore, you do not have a right to not die. No government, no person, no power on earth can make that come true... you're going to die at some point. You have a right not to be killed or injured by the action (or inaction) of another, which is why I said what MindDetective said had merit to it. But you're just in here slinging invective like you always accuse me of doing, while I'm trying to engage in calm discussion.

Chazwozel said:
I consider your opinions to be beyond naive and poisonous to the country, the civilization and the species.

Click to expand...

That's super. Meanwhile, I work in conjunction for a pharmaceutical company and a children's hospital. What do you do again that benefits the species, oh great one? Oh yeah radio D.J... You're way of logic would work great if we were a society of super efficient robots and not, you know, human beings, Rush Jr.

Oh, so now I have to BE an accomplished humanitarian to have opinions on what's good for society? Let's turn some of your earlier logic right back on you, Dr Chaz - how's the compensation at your pharma? Probably a lot more lucrative than any job at my radio company, I'd wager, so shouldn't that invalidate your opinions as it does mine?

And believe me, I'm the last person that believes someone should get something for nothing, but you absolutely can't deny people their basic right's to health and welfare if they're part of a something that considers itself an advanced society. You say you're not an anarchist? I say bullshit.

Again - there is no right. Your rights, as still defined by our society are Life, Liberty and the pursuit (the pursuit, not the guarantee) of happiness. Or, as it was previously worded, life, liberty and property. You have the right not to be killed, injured, opressed, or stolen from. You have the right to equal protection under the law. That's it. You do not have the RIGHT to demand food that is not yours. You do not have the RIGHT to demand housing that is not yours. You do not have the RIGHT to demand healthcare you won't pay for. However, these things are often provided anyway, through both government and private channels, to those who need them out of a sense of charity. But that does not mean that those who receive those services are entitled to them as a RIGHT.

Fun Size said:
If anyone wants a good laugh, I was actually thinking earlier how nice it was that this was a civil conversation on a subject that had not devolved into the usual vitriol that these things sometimes do.

Yeah, that was a great moment.

Please, just remember vividly who started slinging mud while others were trying to have a calm discussion of divergent opinions - protip - it wasn't Gas Bandit.

DarkAudit said:
GasBandit would rather see me or anyone else in a similar situation dead rather than receive care that they have no chance in hell of paying for. You're damn right it's personal.

I still reserve the right to not die, and to take out anyone who would so actively deny me that right. If it's retarded to take down the guy who would pull the plug on me because I wasn't profitable, then it's retarded. But I'd still be here.

I never said any of that, except one line clearly in jest. But good luck on your quest to live forever, and I hope you don't hurt anybody when you go around demanding they make you immortal.

Chazwozel said:
Or, healthcare could be a right based on the rights we've already declared. If, for example, we've declared that every citizen (or every human, for that matter) has the right to a full life, then healthcare logically follows.

That might be something, had we made that declaration. But we haven't.

Well my heath care for prisoners example fits that idea perfectly. It's similar to the 2nd amendment really. You have a right to bare arms, correct? It's implied as to what that right is for. Same with giving prisoners the right to health care, I'm sure that the founding fathers would extend that to the nations citizens, if health care back then was a practical thing to look into.

I happen to be wearing short sleeves even at the moment! Fear me!

Ok, in seriousness - no, I do not believe the founding fathers would have done so, because everything in their nature was to abhor government control of the lives of the citizenry. To the founding fathers, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness meant that you can't be 1)killed or injured unjustly, 2)imprisoned or repressed for political reasons and/or without being convicted of a crime by your peers, or 3)denied the chance to chase your dreams so long as you didn't infringe on anybody else's rights.

Everybody is guaranteed the right to play, not to win.

Oh, and as further testament to the maturity of those involved in the debate on the other side, please make note of the thread tags. I sure didn't put that there.

Sep 14, 2009#103

Kitty Sinatra

BlackCrossCrusader said:
I know illegal immigrants are a problem in the states, should they receive free healthcare or not? Many of you would not like those whom are off the tax grid to gain the same privileges as you do, so I wonder how that scenario would be dealt with.

It's easy to deny them health care in a universal system. I mentioned this in another thread. Here in Ontario when we go to the hospital, doctor, and any other service covered by out government health care, we must present a photo ID "Health Card"

The health card contains an id number (distinct from our Social ID number) that lets the health care system track us and keep all the services in sync with our personal history.

Anyway. You can deny illegal immigrants (or even landed immigrants if you're feeling stingy) whatever level of health care you want by simply not issuing them a card. Really smurfing simple.

----

As for the topic. I'm waffling on whether I'd call it a "right." It ultimately seems like a matter of semantics - i say this because Rob and Chaz seem to be essentially in agreement on everything except the term "right" - and so I'll say that

Yes, it is a right

Because I believe that universal, government provided health care is a smarter, better, more humane solution than what came before it here and the mess down there in the States, and calling it a right makes it more likely to stay this way (with improvements I hope)

Sep 14, 2009#104

Chibibar

GB does make sense when he explain himself (gah! I'm agreeing with him again)

But that brings back to our original topic.

What is basic rights everyone should have?
What society given rights that everyone should have? (this differ from each society)

Gruebeard- Yes, it is a solution, but also changes the oath doctors take when they became doctors

unless they are willing to give free care out of their own pocket.

Sep 14, 2009#105

Fun Size

GasBandit said:
Oh, and as further testament to the maturity of those involved in the debate on the other side, please make note of the thread tags. I sure didn't put that there.

Which just leads to more questions for me. I mean, what is a self-righteous fuck? Feeling morally superior to others about getting it on?

So many questions...

Sep 14, 2009#106

North_Ranger

That's it. This thread is goin' to the Politics.

Sep 14, 2009#107

Fun Size

Dammit dammit dammit...

Sep 14, 2009#108

Chibibar

Fun Size;254851][quote=GasBandit said:
Oh, and as further testament to the maturity of those involved in the debate on the other side, please make note of the thread tags. I sure didn't put that there.

Which just leads to more questions for me. I mean, what is a self-righteous fuck? Feeling morally superior to others about getting it on?

So many questions...[/QUOTE]

I think the basic tenent of
Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness is a basic right of all U.S. citizens. I believe that the original founding father probably don't want big government control/seize/restrict these basic rights to its citizens.

of course as time changes, so does interpretation.

People work and live to pursuit their happiness. If a person is sick, they are no longer pursuiting (not a word) their happiness, thus the government is trying to provide a way to remove that malady and thus the person can continue their pursuit of happiness.

The problem lies that not everyone in the U.S. is a citizen, but judicially have state that rights are still TRUE for illegal immigrant (I do believe an article I post a while back that is gone about illegal immigrant has right to privacy and illegal search and seizure of another crime cause their deportation) so maybe the laws need changing.

I don't know.

Sep 14, 2009#109

Kitty Sinatra

Chibibar said:
Gruebeard- Yes, it is a solution, but also changes the oath doctors take when they became doctors unless they are willing to give free care out of their own pocket.

But that's no different than what you have now with patients who can't pay. The doctor's gonna wind up providing free care or none at all.

If you're referring to the hospitals not being allowed to turn away patients. You can still have it that they treat anyone without a Health Card, but they provide only the minimum care needed.

----

Slightly tangential. I'm getting the impression that we view our hospitals - our emergency rooms specifically - different than y'all. The e.r. is one of the first places we consider going for even mild issues; an intrinsic component of our health care.

What I mean is, it seems y'all think of the e.r. as one part trauma care and one part poor man's health care.

Sep 14, 2009#110

Andromache

So what? it goes to politics. It's still a worthwhile thread (dark audit's venom against GB aside) for the divergent views.

Sep 14, 2009#111

Covar

Gruebeard, In this country we can't even get a requirement for a photo id when voting, it would never happen for healthcare.

Sep 14, 2009#112

crono1224

GasBandit said:
Furthermore, you do not have a right to not die. No government, no person, no power on earth can make that come true... you're going to die at some point. You have a right not to be killed or injured by the action (or inaction) of another, which is why I said what MindDetective said had merit to it. But you're just in here slinging invective like you always accuse me of doing, while I'm trying to engage in calm discussion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Now we must decide is dying from something curable a problem? Its not if we should do the bionic man to him, it's does the person deserved to be saved from a curable disease or illness?

Sep 14, 2009#113

Iaculus

Fun Size;254851][quote=GasBandit said:
Oh, and as further testament to the maturity of those involved in the debate on the other side, please make note of the thread tags. I sure didn't put that there.

Which just leads to more questions for me. I mean, what is a self-righteous fuck? Feeling morally superior to others about getting it on?

So many questions...[/QUOTE]

Self-righteous fucker: One who derides others/dismisses their opinions as invalid because they are virgins.

Yay, new terminology!

Sep 14, 2009#114

Seraphyn

For what it's worth, I think it's a right. And since healthcare is paid by health insurance it's a good thing that's mandatory here as well. Most of the arguing seems to be about semantics while everyone agrees that people that need treatment to live need to be able to receive said treatment.

Sep 14, 2009#115

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Slightly tangential. I'm getting the impression that we view our hospitals - our emergency rooms specifically - different than y'all. The e.r. is one of the first places we consider going for even mild issues; an intrinsic component of our health care.

What I mean is, it seems y'all think of the e.r. as one part trauma care and one part poor man's health care.

We consider the emergency room to be for... you know... emergencies? Spurting, sucking, gushing, gonna-die-if-I-don't-get-treatment-immediately type stuff.

Everything else we generally just make an appointment with our GP for, or if it's worse than merely inconvenient, we show up at the office and wait for an opening. It's usually not a problem to be seen same day. Even without going to the emergency room.

Which is one of the good things about American health care.

Sep 14, 2009#116

Mr_Chaz

Krisken;254536][quote=Fun Size said:
I didn't say it wouldn't turn political, but I think we waste a lot of time debating policy, whereas this seems to be the heart of the debate and I never hear anyone give reasons for one argument or another. I hear yes and no, but nothing beyond that, which I think is interesting. Not useful, but interesting.

That's a fair assessment and observation. I was hoping to avoid the political part by avoiding my reasoning. So here it goes.

I think healthcare is a right because life is sacred. For me it really boils down to that. No matter who we are or what we believe, no one life is more important than another. Healthcare is the preservation of life.[/QUOTE]

To me this is it perfectly.

I feel we should, as a society, be preserving life in all its forms. You may say that the constitution doesn't support that, you may say there's no law to make it a right, but why the hell should that matter? As a group we should be helping people to live.

So to go about this...will the free market do it? No. Will a government step in to do it?

Yes. Maybe not perfectly, but at least it's there.

We have a right to healthcare because we don't have the right to choose to let others die.

---------- Post added at 10:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 PM ----------

GasBandit;254882][quote=Gruebeard said:
Slightly tangential. I'm getting the impression that we view our hospitals - our emergency rooms specifically - different than y'all. The e.r. is one of the first places we consider going for even mild issues; an intrinsic component of our health care.

What I mean is, it seems y'all think of the e.r. as one part trauma care and one part poor man's health care.

Sep 14, 2009#117

GasBandit

Mr_Chaz said:
We have a right to healthcare because we don't have the right to choose to let others die.

And yet, that's just what socialized medicine does.

Even if we pool all our money as a society, there isn't enough to make sure that nobody ever dies, even just from preventable things.

And even cancer and death aside... it also means that government will be making the call on whether a 68 year old gets hip replacement surgery to correct chronic pain... or just gets put on painkillers the rest of his life because it's more economically viable.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

Mr_Chaz said:
Yeah that works over here too, so your American bias fails again. Oh how badly does the NHS suck. Alas. Yadda yadda.

We were talking about canada. NHS sucks for an entirely different set of reasons, which I've gone into over and over again in the GBPT.

Sep 14, 2009#118

Chibibar

Mr_Chaz said:
To me this is it perfectly.

I feel we should, as a society, be preserving life in all its forms. You may say that the constitution doesn't support that, you may say there's no law to make it a right, but why the hell should that matter? As a group we should be helping people to live.

So to go about this...will the free market do it? No. Will a government step in to do it?

Yes. Maybe not perfectly, but at least it's there.

The problem is that when it start hitting each person's pocketbook. It gets personal.

I mean in the U.S. we usually pay almost 35% of our paycheck (before we get it) for a lot of taxes and benefits. It would hurt A LOT if I have to dish out another 10% or even 5% of my check to insured everyone else (collectively)

Sep 14, 2009#119

Kitty Sinatra

GasBandit said:
Which is one of the good things about American health care.

I'm not looking for a pissing match. I was trying to get a sense of what goes on down there. Could you describe your shit without the patriotic crap?

Covar, yeah we don't have requirements for photo id for voting, either.

The Health Card seems to be acceptable to us as similar to a driver's license; plus, for a long time the health card wasn't even a photo ID, it was just a card with our name and health card number . . . that's actually still the card I have and use. The photo card was implemented because apparently we were having issues with fraud; i suppose; I never really thought it was much of an issue.

(rather aside, we also seem to totally recoil at the idea of a universal ID card, too, one that would combine the driver's license, health card and I suppose fishing and gaming licenses and whatever else we carry around in our wallet that's issued by the gov't)

Sep 14, 2009#120

GasBandit

Gruebeard;254914][quote=GasBandit said:
Which is one of the good things about American health care.

I'm not looking for a pissing match. I was trying to get a sense of what goes on down there. Could you describe your shit without the patriotic crap?
[/quote]

Whoops, I'm sorry, I forgot we're not allowed to bring up positive aspects of the American system because the media has decreed we all think it sucks, and therefore every offhanded mention of a positive aspect of the system is tantamount to a jingoistic tirade. Pardon me. If you had said "it doesn't cost me $300 every time I go to the emergency room, which is one of the good things about Canadian health care" I wouldn't have taken offense necessitating irritable profanity. Maybe if you're not looking for a pissing match, you should refrain from turning insulting because of your oversensitivity.

Covar, yeah we don't have requirements for photo id for voting, either.

The Health Card seems to be acceptable to us as similar to a driver's license; plus, for a long time the health card wasn't even a photo ID, it was just a card with our name and health card number . . . that's actually still the card I have and use. The photo card was implemented because apparently we were having issues with fraud; i suppose; I never really thought it was much of an issue.

Fraud's always a concern. Even with the government health provision systems we already have in place (Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly) are rife with fraud as well, at every level from the patient to the doctor to the clinic and up. Incidentally, the Medicare card is also not a photo ID.

(rather aside, we also seem to totally recoil at the idea of a universal ID card, too, one that would combine the driver's license, health card and I suppose fishing and gaming licenses and whatever else we carry around in our wallet that's issued by the gov't)

I'd say recoiling is the right reaction there.

Sep 14, 2009#121

Adammon

Pfft, cost me $400+ to go to the Albertan emergency room when my wife's ovaries decided to run for the hills. Anyone who says that ER trips are free in Canada has never had to take an ambulance anywhere, or they're ignoring user fees completely.

Free Healthcare is an oxymoron.

Sep 14, 2009#122

Mr_Chaz

Adammon said:
Pfft, cost me $400+ to go to the Albertan emergency room when my wife's ovaries decided to run for the hills. Anyone who says that ER trips are free in Canada has never had to take an ambulance anywhere, or they're ignoring user fees completely.

Free Healthcare is an oxymoron.

Yes it is, but free at the point of use isn't. What's your point?

Sep 14, 2009#123

Kitty Sinatra

he means that here in Canada not all aspects of our health care are paid for by the gov't. As noted, ambulance rides are billed to us. Little things like slings are apparently billed to us, too (though I never actually received a bill for that).

There are lots of things that we pay for out of pocket

Sep 14, 2009#124

Adammon

Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

I'd also like to point out that, in BC anyways, you have to pay for your MSP (which is basically public option insurance) yourself if your company doesn't pay for it for you.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

DarkAudit;254787][quote=Adammon said:
OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

Now that's comedy. Willing. You should head to Hollywood, 'cause that's just golden.

When one night in CICU can run well past some folks' annual salary, we're waaay past willing.[/QUOTE]

And thus the crux of your argument becomes apparent.

You don't believe in the 'right to healthcare', you believe in the 'right not to pay full price for healthcare'.

Big difference.

Sep 14, 2009#125

GasBandit

Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.

Sep 14, 2009#126

JCM

GasBandit;254947][quote=Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.[/QUOTE]Looking at the state of your country´s economy, looks like some people need to read his novels.

Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

Sep 14, 2009#127

Adammon

GasBandit;254947][quote=Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Sep 14, 2009#128

Chazwozel

Adammon;254956][quote=GasBandit;254947][quote=Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.[/QUOTE]

I'm a regular poster to FreeRepublic, FreeDominion, Conservatism and CanPolitik on LJ and if there's one thing I've learned. Voicing any conservative views, no matter how mundane or mainstream, will bring out the dipshits.[/QUOTE]

I can't take any extremist seriously, sorry.

Far right Conservatism is the bastion of the fearful. Like it or not, the world changes and is flexible (even in nature) is the given rule of thumb for those who want to change with it. I'll ask you this, since most hard-core conservatives are also hard core Christians. Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

But my biggest problem is that conservatives take any issue and try to make it as black and white, good guys vs. bad guys as possible. That's also not how reality works.

Sep 14, 2009#129

GasBandit

JCM;254953][quote=GasBandit;254947][quote=Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.[/quote]Looking at the state of your country´s economy, looks like some people need to read his novels.

Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.[/quote]

There's definitely something to be said for full enfranchisement only coming after military service, that's for sure. But that's another thread. I liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" better than starship troopers anyway, as far as political sci-fi goes.

Chazwozel said:
I can't take any extremist seriously, sorry.

Far right Conservatism is the bastion of the fearful. Like it or not, the world changes and is flexible (even in nature) is the given rule of thumb for those who want to change with it. I'll ask you this, since most hard-core conservatives are also hard core Christians. Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

But my biggest problem is that conservatives take any issue and try to make it as black and white, good guys vs. bad guys as possible. That's also not how reality works.

Sep 14, 2009#130

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
I can't take any extremist seriously, sorry.

Far right Conservatism is the bastion of the fearful. Like it or not, the world changes and is flexible (even in nature) is the given rule of thumb for those who want to change with it. I'll ask you this, since most hard-core conservatives are also hard core Christians. Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

But my biggest problem is that conservatives take any issue and try to make it as black and white, good guys vs. bad guys as possible. That's also not how reality works.

Yes, but immediately you classify anyone that leans right as 'extremist' which makes you just as guilty as 'black and whitism' as your supposed extremist. And then you also throw in the ol' canard that in order to be a 'hard core conservative' you also have to be a 'hard core Christian'.

I don't go to church although my grandfather was a church elder at the United Church and my grandmother was a Sunday school teacher. I don't believe that organized religion is healthy because it trades off one's relationship with God for an attachment to a very fallible organization run by man. There's a large difference between conservatism and Republicanism. I'd allocate to Republicanism the Christiansanity that throws a lot of people off.

I grew up in a blue collar town, where working hard netted you rewards. Liberalism tells us that we should be ashamed of this success and pass on that reward to those who are less fortunate, or worse, who don't want to work as hard to accomplish that goal. It's the ant and the grasshopper fable. Apparently we also need to be protected or coddled in order to survive this mean old world. A coddled youngster doesn't become a strapping young man, he becomes a bitter radio DJ. You should enjoy the fruits of your labour, and if you don't want to work, you shouldn't get to enjoy the fruits of other people's labour.

Stagnancy is not always good; old is not always best however change is not always progress; new is not always better.

Anyways, I've got tonnes more speechifying to do on the matter but it's all blah blah blah.

Sep 14, 2009#131

Espy

Chazwozel said:
Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

Thats... not exactly how I would phrase that.

Sep 14, 2009#132

Chibibar

Gruebeard;254914][quote=GasBandit said:
Which is one of the good things about American health care.

I'm not looking for a pissing match. I was trying to get a sense of what goes on down there. Could you describe your shit without the patriotic crap?

[/QUOTE]

Basically in a nutshell that anyone can go to ER and seek help without any validation of ID/payment or anything. Once you get cared, you are sent a bill (or never get one if you gave fake/wrong address) eventually these bills will go to collection if not paid and then either it finally get paid (payment plan) or hospital takes a loss. This is where the issue comes into play.

The thing is that, the ER room are open to the public. Generally most people would use it for emergencies, but paying your medical bills are always "optional" if you don't mind the credit hit.

Sep 14, 2009#133

crono1224

And when the economy took a shit and a bunch of people lost their jobs, maybe some that have been working 20+ years putting their hard work in and your fuck free market people shit on all of them. Now they are piss broke can't afford to buy a fucking granola bar at walmart but you expect them to be able to afford health care?

Ya maybe the excuse of personal responsibility works in a perfect ecconomy but once wall street fucked a shit ton of people out of jobs and 401k and what ever else their hard work meant fuckall to being able to afford health care.

So stop using people getting free health care are lazy, it doesn't always work like that.

Sep 14, 2009#134

Kitty Sinatra

Gotcha.

Saying that the hospital takes a loss kinda raises another little question

Just from watching the tv show er, I get the impression that there are publicly funded hospitals, and privately funded (businesses essentially) hospitals. Is this the case? And if so do the private hospitals even have emergency rooms, and if they do are they more stringent in the paperwork?

I'm starting to get curious on the details of how the system functions.

Sep 14, 2009#135

Cuyval Dar

Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

I'd also like to point out that, in BC anyways, you have to pay for your MSP (which is basically public option insurance) yourself if your company doesn't pay for it for you.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------

DarkAudit;254787][quote=Adammon said:

OH, wait, you're complaining because the dollar figure associated with saving your life was higher than you were willing to pay,

Click to expand...

Now that's comedy. Willing. You should head to Hollywood, 'cause that's just golden.

When one night in CICU can run well past some folks' annual salary, we're waaay past willing.

And thus the crux of your argument becomes apparent.

You don't believe in the 'right to healthcare', you believe in the 'right not to pay full price for healthcare'.

Big difference.[/quote]
Hit the nail right on the head.

Espy;254993][quote=Chazwozel said:
Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

Thats... not exactly how I would phrase that.[/quote]
No kidding.

Sep 15, 2009#136

Cajungal

I'm still as confused as ever.

Sep 15, 2009#137

Kitty Sinatra

there's prolly a pill for that, Cajungal. Maybe your insurance covers the prescription.

Sep 15, 2009#138

Chibibar

crono1224 said:
And when the economy took a shit and a bunch of people lost their jobs, maybe some that have been working 20+ years putting their hard work in and your fuck free market people shit on all of them. Now they are piss broke can't afford to buy a fucking granola bar at walmart but you expect them to be able to afford health care?

Ya maybe the excuse of personal responsibility works in a perfect ecconomy but once wall street fucked a shit ton of people out of jobs and 401k and what ever else their hard work meant fuckall to being able to afford health care.

So stop using people getting free health care are lazy, it doesn't always work like that.

I don't think many people are talking about that right now.

Before the economy tanked, there are people exploiting the system already. The U.S. economy is on the verge of crumbling down anyways consider all the stuff going on the in the past 10 years (auto, insurance, housing, inflation etc etc) Just many people didn't want to see it or believe it until it happens.

Now currently the system that is in place (providing care regardless of pay) hurts the economy even more since like you said honest people who been working for ages and try to save up in their 401k tanked, but they still need health care. People get sick, people need their meds, so the medical bill piles up. What can we do about that?

There are two sides of the issues of many things and sadly from those two sides spawn many little sides that can help/hinder the situtation. Hospitals are getting hit harder now than before since many people CAN'T afford to pay because they don't have a job.

This is why I personally believe Obama's healthcare plan is the wrong step right now. I believe he should be concentrating on the "new new deal" to get people jobs FIRST then these people will be able to afford their own healthcare THEN see who are left and work with that.

Making affordable healthcare doesn't mean jack if people who needs it can't even afford to put food on the table or roof over their heads.

Sep 15, 2009#139

SpecialKO

This is probably the best article I have seen regarding the systemic problems of the American health care system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

It's neither really pro or con the Obama plan, but addresses more how incentives throughout the entire system are flawed and have led to our current dilemna, and how Obama's plan is more band-aid than surgery.

Sep 15, 2009#140

Rob King

JCM said:
Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

There's something attractive to this. Also, we spent about a week and a half in my political philosophy class just talking about Starship Troopers.

Sep 15, 2009#141

GasBandit

Heh, sayanythingblog had an interesting phraseology on this yesterday -

the guiding principle of our country is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that statement doesn’t specifically guarantee happiness but rather your ability to pursue it.
The problem with a lot of liberals is that they seem to think that everything they want is a right, and that rights mean that other people have a responsibility to help you exercise that right. All rights mean is opportunity. Free speech means you have the opportunity to speak out, not that someone has to give you a platform to speak from. Free religion means you have a right to believe (or not believe) as you wish. Not that someone has to subsidize your beliefs.
Gun rights mean you have the opportunity to own guns. Not that people have to buy guns for you so you can exercise those rights.
Health care is not a right, but even if it were it still wouldn’t mean that the rest of society has the resopnsibility to provide it to you. You have the freedom to be prosperous and care for yourself.

Interesting point. If a right to healthcare means everybody has to pay for the individual's healthcare, why aren't you guys buying me guns? I have a right to bear arms that is being infringed by my ability to pay for them!

Sep 15, 2009#142

Bowielee

Gruebeard said:
Gotcha.

Saying that the hospital takes a loss kinda raises another little question

Just from watching the tv show er, I get the impression that there are publicly funded hospitals, and privately funded (businesses essentially) hospitals. Is this the case? And if so do the private hospitals even have emergency rooms, and if they do are they more stringent in the paperwork?

I'm starting to get curious on the details of how the system functions.

This was actually my profession for many years. I was an analyst for the collection of medical bills.

First and foremost, regardless of being private or public, hospitals are businesses.

The hospital and clinic system I worked for was non-profit, which is in and of itself an oxymoron because any business is built on making a profit. The only difference is where that profit is spent. I can't really speak to the private hospitals, but from what I understand they work almost exactly the same as non-profit hospitals, except that the CEOs and other board members rake in more of the profit, rather than reinvesting it in growth.

There are 2 different systems, clinical systems and hospital systems. Clinical systems focus more on specialties and non emergent stuff, the hospital system focuses on emergent care and are more often then not used for any sort of non-ambulatory care(inpatient hospital stays).

It is ILLEGAL for any hospital to turn down an emergent case. So, even though I am a staunch liberal, I do have to agree that we ALREADY have the right to healthcare. It is already built into our hospital systems and government. To argue that we don't is retarded.

The cost associated with that healthcare is the issue, and that what's muddying the waters in the argument. Some people are equating "free healthcare" to "access to healthcare" and they are 2 completely seperate things.

I admit my personal bias when it comes to the issue, but I can't blame the healthcare system for the breakdown of healthcare at all, I place the blame firmly on the shoulders of the insurance companies. They don't do what they were originally intended to do, and quite frankly, with all the bullshit they pull, they are the very reason that healthcare bills are so high in the first place. Most compensation for hospitals are obtained through insurance, so their incessant denial of claims and lowering of fee scales is what is pushing up basic healthcare cost.

If hospitals do not raise their fees to match, they will not be able to expand and buy that shiny new MRI machine that will save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.

Also, any state that I'm aware of REQUIRES that hospitals and clinics have some sort of charity care program for low income individuals, so in essence, they already do provide free health care for low income people.

The problem is when it comes to upper lower-class through the middle class. they are the ones being gouged with extremely high insurance premiums and high deductibles that make it nearly impossible to afford their health care. This is a huge issue because the middle class make up the majority of our population. Hospitals are actually losing money at this point while insurance companies are making profits.

Sep 15, 2009#143

Le Quack

GasBandit;254947][quote=Adammon said:
Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.[/QUOTE]

I love Robert Heinlein!
I just read Starship Troopers and it is scary as fuck.

Sep 15, 2009#144

Bowielee

Great, I make a detailed post with good points just in time for the thread to be moved and die in the political forum.

Sep 15, 2009#145

Krisken

Bowielee said:
Great, I make a detailed post with good points just in time for the thread to be moved and die in the political forum.

You made great points. Hopefully more people get a chance to read it.

Sep 15, 2009#146

Covar

Bowielee said:
Great, I make a detailed post with good points just in time for the thread to be moved and die in the political forum.

Don't think this Thread is dead just yet. The political boards have 2 types of threads. Those that get 2 posts, and those that have 200. This looks to be of the later.

Sep 15, 2009#147

Chibibar

Bowielee: this is what my friends who works at hospital feels the same way (and tell me stuff when they can)

The insurance company is what really screwing people. It is a vicious cycle really. Hospital do have to make money in order to stay in business. They have to pay people and bills too.

This is why I think Obama's system is not the solution. It is not the answer. The problem is pretty deep and it would take some serious work to turn it around which the way U.S. economy works, it will not happen

Sep 15, 2009#148

JCM

Rob King;255354][quote=JCM said:
Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

There's something attractive to this. Also, we spent about a week and a half in my political philosophy class just talking about Starship Troopers.[/QUOTE]

"GasBandit;254967][quote=JCM said:
GasBandit;254947 said:

Adammon said:

Like my economics books say "Ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Click to expand...

Heh, careful, last time I started talking like that, somebody accused me of getting all my political views from Heinlein novels.

Click to expand...

Looking at the state of your country´s economy, looks like some people need to read his novels.

Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

There's definitely something to be said for full enfranchisement only coming after military service, that's for sure. But that's another thread. I liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" better than starship troopers anyway, as far as political sci-fi goes.

Chazwozel said:
I can't take any extremist seriously, sorry.

Far right Conservatism is the bastion of the fearful. Like it or not, the world changes and is flexible (even in nature) is the given rule of thumb for those who want to change with it. I'll ask you this, since most hard-core conservatives are also hard core Christians. Who do you worship? If your answer is Jesus, you're basing your faith in a radial, left wing nut job who went completely against the conservative mainstream of his lifetime.

But my biggest problem is that conservatives take any issue and try to make it as black and white, good guys vs. bad guys as possible. That's also not how reality works.

That depends on which way you're defining conservatism - the classical definition which means being "reactionary," or the contemporary definition which means "emphasizing personal responsibility over societal responsibility."

I will say though, if an issue isn't black or white, it just means perspective isn't broad enough.[/QUOTE]It also the only viable solution to countries like the UK, that are being overrun with immigrants who instead of adapting to the country, instead protest to make the country adapt to them.

That would be how I give someone any right. WORK for the country, prove that you arent just some freeloading immigrant, then you get rights, ala Brazil, where a male can only get a voter´s card (aka the right to vote) after proving he has passed the obligatory 1 year army service.

Sep 15, 2009#149

GasBandit

I still like what that guy said on the blog I linked. Some people just don't understand what it means for something to be a right... it means nobody can prevent you from obtaining something under your own power, not that somebody has to give it to you at no expense or inconvenience to you.

People who think otherwise obviously have never *really* had their rights violated. And I'm not talking about somebody stealing something from you, I'm talking about, when was the last time the government forced you to house troops in your home, whether you wanted to or not, and to add insult to injury, didn't compensate you for it? When was the last time you were jailed for your political beliefs? When was the last time you were executed for being a catholic?? These events were all par for the course for governments of the era when the constitution was written, THAT was what is REALLY meant to have a right violated. Not having to pay for your own doctoring.

Sep 15, 2009#150

Adammon

GasBandit said:
When was the last time you were executed for being a catholic??

Yesterday asshole. And I'm still very sensitive about it

Sep 15, 2009#151

Kitty Sinatra

JCM said:
It also the only viable solution to countries like the UK, that are being overrun with immigrants who instead of adapting to the country, instead protest to make the country adapt to them.

Sep 15, 2009#152

Covar

Gruebeard;255706][quote=JCM said:
It also the only viable solution to countries like the UK, that are being overrun with immigrants who instead of adapting to the country, instead protest to make the country adapt to them.

Sep 15, 2009#153

Armadillo

Rob King;255354][quote=JCM said:
Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

Sep 15, 2009#154

Kitty Sinatra

Covar;255717][quote=Gruebeard;255706][quote=JCM said:
It also the only viable solution to countries like the UK, that are being overrun with immigrants who instead of adapting to the country, instead protest to make the country adapt to them.

Dude. You want to be Canadian and yet you just negatively describe exactly what Canada is (although you refer to the UK). Canada wants to be shaped by its immigrants. To a degree, of course: There are certain core values that make Canada what it is, and we hopefully don't compromise those values while embracing the changes our immigrants will bring.[/QUOTE]

like your tv? brilliant way to get Hollywood to make shows in your country though.[/QUOTE]

What? What the hell does television have to do with culture?

Ha!

No, actually, I just mean to say that I haven't a clue how immigrants shaping a country relates to Americans making their TV shows in Vancouver and Toronto. You must have some reason to connect the two, but I can't figure it out.

---------- Post added at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 AM ----------

Armadillo said:
There's NOTHING attractive about that. In America, the whole idea of inalienable rights is that they're yours by virtue of being alive, and the government can not take them away from you without due process. Remember-the Constitution and the government PROTECT your rights, they don't GRANT them.

The only thing - as I recall - that was granted by military service in the fictional world of Starship Troopers was Enfranchisement -essentially, the right to vote or run for office (and the running for office part is only inferred with a bit of logical thought.)

It seems to stem from the American system that holds the president as the leader of the army - and thus the army and government are intimately entwined - and the practice of some nations (like Israel and Switzerland, I believe) to require mandatory military service.

When I read Starship Troopers, I never considered the philosophy inside as anything more than a sci-fi exaggeration of these real world examples. Consequently, I think that readers who glom onto this philosophy as some great idea are silly geeks. It's as silly as getting your history from Xena: Warrior Princess.

D'ya grok?

Sep 16, 2009#155

Covar

I got the tv thing from your countries requirement for X amount of television to be Canadian. As it was explained to me this is to keep the American tv shows and culture from taking over the Canadian airwaves.

Sep 16, 2009#156

Armadillo

Gruebeard;255752][/COLOR][quote=Armadillo said:
There's NOTHING attractive about that. In America, the whole idea of inalienable rights is that they're yours by virtue of being alive, and the government can not take them away from you without due process. Remember-the Constitution and the government PROTECT your rights, they don't GRANT them.

Sep 16, 2009#157

JCM

Gruebeard;255706][quote=JCM said:
It also the only viable solution to countries like the UK, that are being overrun with immigrants who instead of adapting to the country, instead protest to make the country adapt to them.

Dude. You want to be Canadian and yet you just negatively describe exactly what Canada is (although you refer to the UK). Canada wants to be shaped by its immigrants. To a degree, of course: There are certain core values that make Canada what it is, and we hopefully don't compromise those values while embracing the changes our immigrants will bring.[/QUOTE]Why do you think Im studying French for?

Unlike most immigrants, some of us have the decency to learn the language, culture and customs, immigrate bringing money to be invested in that country AND abide by that country´s rules.

It has worked wonders, and bagged me Malaysian and Singaporean citizenships, allowed me to get a visa to the US time after time without a hitch (whereas most brazilians have to go through months of waiting and never get it), and is much better than the shit we see in France, US and UK-That is immigrants whose only purpose for coming is to get money off from that country, and bitch how that country is not to their liking.

Armadillo;255720][quote=Rob King;255354][quote=JCM said:
Specially Starship Troopers, I love the concept of only having rights AFTER serving the government.

There's something attractive to this. Also, we spent about a week and a half in my political philosophy class just talking about Starship Troopers.[/QUOTE]

There's NOTHING attractive about that. In America, the whole idea of inalienable rights is that they're yours by virtue of being alive, and the government can not take them away from you without due process. Remember-the Constitution and the government PROTECT your rights, they don't GRANT them.[/QUOTE]Thats the problem when your country´s money, defense and welfare, which comes from mostly a hard-working middle class, goes to paying immigrants who like I said, come mostly to get money.

As long as citizenship and rights are cheap stuff to be given out to everyone who wants to make money off your country, and give nothing back, you´ll never be able to have proper public healthcare and welfare.

Now, if an immigrant comes in legally, pays taxes, abides by the law, serves the country and culture of the country that is his host, then yes, he has the right to public healthcare, like in Malaysia, where I was able get free consultation and medicine, even when I didnt have a citizenship yet,.

Sep 16, 2009#158

The Lovely Boehner

I can't take anyone seriously that goes to freerepublic dot com.

Sep 16, 2009#159

Adammon

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I can't take anyone seriously that goes to freerepublic dot com.

Don't worry, I think most of your opinions are fucking retarded too.

Sep 16, 2009#160

The Lovely Boehner

Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

Sep 16, 2009#161

Adammon

Charlie Dont Surf said:
Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

Sep 16, 2009#162

Chazwozel

Adammon;256255][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

A 'site' can't be racist. PEOPLE can. If some people are racist, I can't control that any more than I can control Shego killing people. As long as I'M not racist, what does it matter what the people around me think?[/QUOTE]

Great minds think alike... /eyeroll

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

GasBandit said:
Heh, sayanythingblog had an interesting phraseology on this yesterday -

the guiding principle of our country is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that statement doesn’t specifically guarantee happiness but rather your ability to pursue it.
The problem with a lot of liberals is that they seem to think that everything they want is a right, and that rights mean that other people have a responsibility to help you exercise that right. All rights mean is opportunity. Free speech means you have the opportunity to speak out, not that someone has to give you a platform to speak from. Free religion means you have a right to believe (or not believe) as you wish. Not that someone has to subsidize your beliefs.
Gun rights mean you have the opportunity to own guns. Not that people have to buy guns for you so you can exercise those rights.
Health care is not a right, but even if it were it still wouldn’t mean that the rest of society has the resopnsibility to provide it to you. You have the freedom to be prosperous and care for yourself.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. If a right to healthcare means everybody has to pay for the individual's healthcare, why aren't you guys buying me guns? I have a right to bear arms that is being infringed by my ability to pay for them!

Sep 16, 2009#163

Kitty Sinatra

JCM said:
Unlike most immigrants, some of us have the decency to learn the language, culture and customs, immigrate bringing money to be invested in that country AND abide by that country´s rules.

Is there actually a wealthy country in the world that doesn't expect that of their immigrants?

The sort of immigrant you describe seem to be colonizers from wealthy countries looking to exploit a poor nation.

Sep 16, 2009#164

Adammon

Chazwozel;256259][quote=Adammon;256255][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

A 'site' can't be racist. PEOPLE can. If some people are racist, I can't control that any more than I can control Shego killing people. As long as I'M not racist, what does it matter what the people around me think?[/QUOTE]

Great minds think alike... /eyeroll[/quote]

Yes, because Guilt by Association works outside of high school...

Sep 16, 2009#165

The Lovely Boehner

IF I held extreme conservative views, I wouldn't be proud of free republic dot com or stormfront dot org.

Sep 16, 2009#166

Kitty Sinatra

Hey, Guilt By Association worked during the Great Commie Hunt of '50

Sep 16, 2009#167

Adammon

Charlie Dont Surf said:
IF I held extreme conservative views, I wouldn't be proud of free republic dot com or stormfront dot org.

You're going to find extreme views on any political website, CrooksAndLiars, DU, Politico, DailyKos, HuffPost - and I post to all of them. I'm not proud of any particular website - it's like being proud of a screwdriver.

Try reading the sites that you're talking about; except for Stormfront. That's definitely a neo-nazi website.

Sep 16, 2009#168

The Lovely Boehner

I have read FreeRepublic on several occasions to laugh at their horrifying posts. Because if I didn't laugh, I'd cry.

Sep 16, 2009#169

Adammon

Yes, there are an abundance of retards on the Internet. If you want to see full retardation on display, read the Creation/Evolution threads. It's all facepalm, all the time.

Another classic is that stupid fake Kenyan Birth Certificate that was posted on FR. I spent untold hours debunking the damn thing all throughout this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts

Sep 16, 2009#170

Le Quack

Chazwozel;256259][quote=Adammon;256255][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

GasBandit said:
Heh, sayanythingblog had an interesting phraseology on this yesterday -

the guiding principle of our country is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Note that statement doesn’t specifically guarantee happiness but rather your ability to pursue it.
The problem with a lot of liberals is that they seem to think that everything they want is a right, and that rights mean that other people have a responsibility to help you exercise that right. All rights mean is opportunity. Free speech means you have the opportunity to speak out, not that someone has to give you a platform to speak from. Free religion means you have a right to believe (or not believe) as you wish. Not that someone has to subsidize your beliefs.
Gun rights mean you have the opportunity to own guns. Not that people have to buy guns for you so you can exercise those rights.
Health care is not a right, but even if it were it still wouldn’t mean that the rest of society has the resopnsibility to provide it to you. You have the freedom to be prosperous and care for yourself.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. If a right to healthcare means everybody has to pay for the individual's healthcare, why aren't you guys buying me guns? I have a right to bear arms that is being infringed by my ability to pay for them!

Sigh...same ol' gas taking complex issues and trying to make them black and white. Although, being a radio DJ, it's pretty much your job to dumb down complex issues for your audience into bit size morsels they can digest.[/QUOTE]

WAIT!

Gas Bandit is a radio DJ? A politcal pundit?
This explains everything.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

Adammon;256272][quote=Chazwozel;256259][quote=Adammon;256255][quote=Charlie Dont Surf said:
Politics are politics, but that site is virulently racist.

A 'site' can't be racist. PEOPLE can. If some people are racist, I can't control that any more than I can control Shego killing people. As long as I'M not racist, what does it matter what the people around me think?[/QUOTE]

Great minds think alike... /eyeroll[/quote]

Yes, because Guilt by Association works outside of high school...[/QUOTE]

It does where the law concerns drugs.

Sep 16, 2009#171

Fun Size

GB is not, as I recall, a DJ. He works for a radio station selling advertisements I think.

Sep 16, 2009#172

Adammon

I don't think it really matters what he does. It's kind of a prick move to associate what someone does in real life as indicative of their opinion.

Sep 16, 2009#173

Chazwozel

Adammon said:
I don't think it really matters what he does. It's kind of a prick move to associate what someone does in real life as indicative of their opinion.

Please, you did that to yourself a couple pages back... "I grew up in a blue collar town, blah blah..."

Sep 16, 2009#174

Covar

Chazwozel said:
Sigh...same ol' gas taking complex issues and trying to make them black and white. Although, being a radio DJ, it's pretty much your job to dumb down complex issues for your audience into bit size morsels they can digest.

Aren't we an elitist.

Sep 16, 2009#175

Chazwozel

Covar;256340][quote=Chazwozel said:
Sigh...same ol' gas taking complex issues and trying to make them black and white. Although, being a radio DJ, it's pretty much your job to dumb down complex issues for your audience into bit size morsels they can digest.

Aren't we an elitist.[/QUOTE]

Yes, sir. Fuck all you guys that make less money than I do. You don't deserve health care. You don't even deserve to lick the dust off my shoes.

Sep 16, 2009#176

Jake

You gotta fight...
for your right...
to heaaaaaaaaalth care!

Sorry, I'll let you gents get back to it.

Sep 16, 2009#177

Adammon

Chazwozel;256339][quote=Adammon said:
I don't think it really matters what he does. It's kind of a prick move to associate what someone does in real life as indicative of their opinion.

Please, you did that to yourself a couple pages back... "I grew up in a blue collar town, blah blah..."[/QUOTE]

Holy shit yeah, you're totally right. Giving people my background is TOTALLY equivalent to running down a person's job...

Sep 16, 2009#178

Kitty Sinatra

Jake, that reminds me. According to the Clash We have these 3 rights

1) The right not to be killed (murder is a crime unless it is done by a policeman or an aristocrat)

2) The right to food money (providing of course you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation and, if you cross your fingers, rehabilitation)

3) The right to free speech (as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it)

Know these rights. These are your rights. All of them. Nothing about health care, there. And how can you dispute the Clash?

Sep 16, 2009#179

Chazwozel

Bottom line is you can spout all your right wing bullshit to me all day long, for all I care. You're not the assholes that see what happens to people who are denied coverage and how hard it is for some people to afford medicine for their children. Why do I keep calling out on Gas's profession? It's not to berate him, it's to make it clear that he's VERY far removed from the reality of the situation. I bet a million bucks that if any of you free market asses would actually see how much people struggle with affording healthcare, or if you personally would experience a terminal disease, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

But hey, don't listen to the guy with a Ph.D. who works in healthcare...

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

It's not your right to healthcare? Yeah, sing me that song when you've got leukemia with 6 months left.

Sep 16, 2009#180

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
Bottom line is you can spout all your right wing bullshit to me all day long, for all I care. You're not the assholes that see what happens to people who are denied coverage and how hard it is for some people to afford medicine for their children. Why do I keep calling out on Gas's profession? It's not to berate him, it's to make it clear that he's VERY far removed from the reality of the situation. I bet a million bucks that if any of you free market asses would actually see how much people struggle with affording healthcare, or if you personally would experience a terminal disease, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

But hey, don't listen to the guy with a Ph.D. who works in healthcare...

I was waiting for you to throw out the ePeen. I have a degree in Economics. Which applies more in a 'affordability' discussion? Quick like a bunny.

And you're a molecular biologist, you douchenozzle; tangentially related to healthcare

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

And some people disagree.. Awoooooo...scary.

Sep 16, 2009#181

Chibibar

Chazwozel said:
Bottom line is you can spout all your right wing bullshit to me all day long, for all I care. You're not the assholes that see what happens to people who are denied coverage and how hard it is for some people to afford medicine for their children. Why do I keep calling out on Gas's profession? It's not to berate him, it's to make it clear that he's VERY far removed from the reality of the situation. I bet a million bucks that if any of you free market asses would actually see how much people struggle with affording healthcare, or if you personally would experience a terminal disease, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

But hey, don't listen to the guy with a Ph.D. who works in healthcare...

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

It's not your right to healthcare? Yeah, sing me that song when you've got leukemia with 6 months left.

but sir... I don't think Obama's plan was government healthcare. It is AFFORDABLE health insurance for the masses (at least that is what I have been hearing and what I read so far cause it is a REALLY boring bill to read)

that is two different camp.

I am saying that affordable healthcare (insurance) means jack when people can't afford it. I know what it is like to be poor. I know it is hard to get any medical help when you have to choose between feeding your children vs insurance (my parents had to face that, but they learn their lesson and work REALLY hard to ensure my sister and I grew up well and healthy) well... healthy, I'm not sure I'm well (in terms of my mind heheh)

Sep 16, 2009#182

Chazwozel

Adammon;256361][quote=Chazwozel said:
Bottom line is you can spout all your right wing bullshit to me all day long, for all I care. You're not the assholes that see what happens to people who are denied coverage and how hard it is for some people to afford medicine for their children. Why do I keep calling out on Gas's profession? It's not to berate him, it's to make it clear that he's VERY far removed from the reality of the situation. I bet a million bucks that if any of you free market asses would actually see how much people struggle with affording healthcare, or if you personally would experience a terminal disease, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

But hey, don't listen to the guy with a Ph.D. who works in healthcare...

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

And some people disagree.. Awoooooo...scary.[/QUOTE]

Those people like to subscribe to the best current American healthcare system. "Don't get sick."

Sep 16, 2009#183

Jake

Chazwozel said:
Those people like to subscribe to the best current American healthcare system. "Don't get sick."

Only as a corollary to "Don't be poor".

Of course, under the current system getting sick can make you poor.

Sep 16, 2009#184

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

And some people disagree.. Awoooooo...scary.[/QUOTE]

Those people like to subscribe to the best current American healthcare system. "Don't get sick."[/QUOTE]

No, because 'those people' understand that an equilibrium between the aggregate supply and demand of health care cannot be reached where the cost approaches anything that you would consider 'affordable'. We simply don't have the resources to do so. And with an aging population, demand only increases while supply stays the same putting upward pressure on prices.

And even if the government takes control of healthcare, there will still be people dying because of the rationing of these limited resources. Except now instead of the rationing being as a result of "who can pay the $$$" it will be "what will cost the gov't the most $$$".

Sep 16, 2009#185

Chazwozel

Adammon said:
No, because 'those people' understand that an equilibrium between the aggregate supply and demand of health care cannot be reached where the cost approaches anything that you would consider 'affordable'. We simply don't have the resources to do so. And with an aging population, demand only increases while supply stays the same putting upward pressure on prices.

And even if the government takes control of healthcare, there will still be people dying because of the rationing of these limited resources. Except now instead of the rationing being as a result of "who can pay the $$$" it will be "what will cost the gov't the most $$$".

Sep 16, 2009#186

Chibibar

Chazwozel said:
Common medical procedures and medicines aren't limited resources... Do you know how many doctors are cranked out every year? As for limited medical resources in terms of medicine? Hell, even my company is working with U.Penn in designing a cheap, cost effective vector and delivery system for gene therapy to use in the clinic. The problem with healthcare is in the insurance company premiums, not in the resources.

Sep 16, 2009#187

Chazwozel

Chibibar;256394][quote=Chazwozel said:
Common medical procedures and medicines aren't limited resources... Do you know how many doctors are cranked out every year? As for limited medical resources in terms of medicine? Hell, even my company is working with U.Penn in designing a cheap, cost effective vector and delivery system for gene therapy to use in the clinic. The problem with healthcare is in the insurance company premiums, not in the resources.

While you may be right, not every cities have that luxury. My friends who are nurses are working a ton of overtime due to understaff. Doctors are putting in tons of hours in hospitals (at least here in Dallas)

but if we are going to debate, at least we have to be on the same topic. Are we debating of having affording health insurance (that is what I was talking about and Obama's position) vs Government provide healthcare (that is a mix in this thread)[/QUOTE]

Nurses are always in demand.

And the topic is: Is Healthcare a right?

I still say yes. Under a structured society, every citizen of that society deserves adequate benefits for being a productive member of that society.

Sep 16, 2009#188

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
Common medical procedures and medicines aren't limited resources... Do you know how many doctors are cranked out every year? As for limited medical resources in terms of medicine? Hell, even my company is working with U.Penn in designing a cheap, cost effective vector and delivery system for gene therapy to use in the clinic. The problem with healthcare is in the insurance company premiums, not in the resources.

Sep 16, 2009#189

Chazwozel

Adammon;256397][quote=Chazwozel said:
Common medical procedures and medicines aren't limited resources... Do you know how many doctors are cranked out every year? As for limited medical resources in terms of medicine? Hell, even my company is working with U.Penn in designing a cheap, cost effective vector and delivery system for gene therapy to use in the clinic. The problem with healthcare is in the insurance company premiums, not in the resources.

Come to Canada (Where the government follows your advice and offers 'free' healthcare) and talk to me about 'limited medical resources'. There's a reason that the best medical development happens in the US and that's because of the money to be made doing it. Your example is a counterpoint to your argument.[/QUOTE]

The best medical development happens in America because we have universities and medical colleges out the ass compared to other countries.

Sep 16, 2009#190

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
The best medical development happens in America because we have universities and medical colleges out the ass compared to other countries.

Wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_uni_top_100_percap-universities-top-100-per-capita

# 1 Australia: 0.597 per capita
# 2 Switzerland: 0.534 per capita
# 3 Singapore: 0.452 per capita
# 4 Hong Kong: 0.435 per capita
# 5 Belgium: 0.289 per capita
# 6 New Zealand: 0.248 per capita
= 7 Austria: 0.244 per capita
= 7 Netherlands: 0.244 per capita
# 9 United Kingdom: 0.215 per capita
# 10 Finland: 0.191 per capita
# 11 Denmark: 0.184 per capita
# 12 Israel: 0.159 per capita
# 13 United States: 0.105 per capita
# 14 Canada: 0.091 per capita
# 15 France: 0.082 per capita

Sep 16, 2009#191

Chazwozel

Adammon;256402][quote=Chazwozel said:
The best medical development happens in America because we have universities and medical colleges out the ass compared to other countries.

Sep 16, 2009#192

Chibibar

Chazwozel said:
Nurses are always in demand.

And the topic is: Is Healthcare a right?

I still say yes. Under a structured society, every citizen of that society deserves adequate benefits for being a productive member of that society.

Ok. Productive members.... what about the homeless? In Dallas we have two types. one is that people are out on their luck and need to find way to get BACK into working society (Party A. they are trying to get back on their feet) and there are people who just going to take advantage of the system (party B).

The hard part? trying to figure out who is who and who should give care.

If it is a right, the both parties deserve care while one party (Party A) will eventually become a productive member and have ROI while the other Party (Party B)

Do you think party B deserves healthcare?

Sep 16, 2009#193

Adammon

Chazwozel said:
Fine, because we have the best universities per capita...

Yes, and where does the money to fund those universities come from?

Sep 16, 2009#194

Chazwozel

Adammon;256405][quote=Chazwozel said:
Fine, because we have the best universities per capita...

Yes, and where does the money to fund those universities come from?[/QUOTE]

Stocks for most privatized ones. Government for others. Tuition and alumni donations factor in a bit.

Sep 16, 2009#195

Adammon

Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

Sep 16, 2009#196

Bowielee

Chazwozel;256379][quote=Adammon said:
No, because 'those people' understand that an equilibrium between the aggregate supply and demand of health care cannot be reached where the cost approaches anything that you would consider 'affordable'. We simply don't have the resources to do so. And with an aging population, demand only increases while supply stays the same putting upward pressure on prices.

And even if the government takes control of healthcare, there will still be people dying because of the rationing of these limited resources. Except now instead of the rationing being as a result of "who can pay the $$$" it will be "what will cost the gov't the most $$$".

Common medical procedures and medicines aren't limited resources... Do you know how many doctors are cranked out every year? As for limited medical resources in terms of medicine? Hell, even my company is working with U.Penn in designing a cheap, cost effective vector and delivery system for gene therapy to use in the clinic. The problem with healthcare is in the insurance company premiums, not in the resources.[/QUOTE]

I've only taken basic econ, which you also should have to get a PhD and that should have taught you that there is no such thing as an unlimited resource.

From an economics standpoint, he is making a good point. Most of this could be alleviated, though by regulating insurance companies so they can't charge whatever the market will bear seeing as healthcare isn't like CDs or apples, you can't live without emergent treatment.

Sep 16, 2009#197

Chibibar

Adammon said:
Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

That is a good question. It all comes down to personal agenda and political issues. A lot of research are done in university because they don't need to "produce" profit. Some company might be able to afford to do some research but the ultimate goal is "is this product gonna make it big" mentality.

Business are made to make a profit. Regardless of the business, if there is no profit, there is no business. Even non-profit, is still looking to make a profit, the difference is that all profit are reinvest into the business instead going into the pocket of investors.

Government funded universities can be a good thing BUT they are limited in what they can research. Mainly cause they don't want to step on anyone's toes and lose the government money.

Private funded university also have the same issue, but different donors have different personal views and thus allow more diversity BUT can be limited if the funds are limited.

P.S. even universities have to make some sort of profit in order to stay open, but it is mainly run via tuition base and thus their goal is to attract more students which could lead to more research.

Sep 16, 2009#198

Chazwozel

Adammon said:
Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

No.

Sep 16, 2009#199

Adammon

Bowielee said:
I've only taken basic econ, which you also should have to get a PhD and that should have taught you that there is no such thing as an unlimited resource.

From an economics standpoint, he is making a good point. Most of this could be alleviated, though by regulating insurance companies so they can't charge whatever the market will bear seeing as healthcare isn't like CDs or apples, you can't live without emergent treatment.

I don't even know if regulation is the key, but competition. The fewer the number of firms in a market, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the monopoly outcome (high price above marginal cost, low output). (A Nash equilibrium in an economic market is where all firms in the market are choosing their best output strategy given what the other firms are doing.) The larger the number of firms, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the perfectly competitive outcome (lower price equal to marginal cost, higher output).

While I'm hesitant to use the word 'collusion' to describe the actions of insurance companies, whatever they're doing isn't working...

Sep 16, 2009#200

Le Quack

Adammon;256405][quote=Chazwozel said:
Fine, because we have the best universities per capita...

Yes, and where does the money to fund those universities come from?[/QUOTE]

I do believe that the students that pay for the universities fund the universities.

Sep 16, 2009#201

Espy

Le Quack;256613][quote=Adammon;256405][quote=Chazwozel said:
Fine, because we have the best universities per capita...

Yes, and where does the money to fund those universities come from?[/QUOTE]

I do believe that the loans that are taken out by students are what fund the universities.[/QUOTE]

Fix't

Sep 16, 2009#202

Rob King

Adammon said:
Come to Canada (Where the government follows your advice and offers 'free' healthcare) and talk to me about 'limited medical resources'. There's a reason that the best medical development happens in the US and that's because of the money to be made doing it. Your example is a counterpoint to your argument.

I would like to see what criteria you base that declaration on. Especially since you're comparing our humble nation to the world's only current superpower. A nation which is also about ten times the size of us, it might be worth pointing out.

I mean ... a cursory Google search turned up this page. Now, I'm the greatest philistine in here when it comes to medicine, and I couldn't tell you if these are some of the 'best' medical developments in the last few years, but I would put money on the fact that they're probably not insignificant.

Sep 17, 2009#203

SpecialKO

The Swiss healthcare system is very interesting (my family moved there when I was in high school).

Healthcare insurance is mandatory for 99% of the population. Every Swiss healthcare company has to offer a basic, government-regulated, plan to anyone who asks for it, and they are not allowed to profit beyond a certain amount on the mandated plan.

However, they can charge whatever the market allows them to on supplementary/comprehensive insurance with only a few stipulations, the largest being that they are not allowed to charge higher premiums based on current state of health.

Policy prices and the costs of medical procedures are all publicly available. The poor get help from the government to pay for their insurance, but everyone else has the ability to pay higher deductibles in order to get lower premiums, and employers pay a very small percentage relative to individuals.

I'm pretty sure that American insurance companies would hate it due to the regulation and lower profit margins, and due to physician compensation laws there is a common complaint that the Swiss are occasionally forced to pay high deductibles for basic services, but if you want an example of a government-regulated system where consumers can shop around between almost 100 different companies, and companies can still make big bucks by charging supplementary premiums and fees for things like coverage, specialty care, and private (as in your own room in a private, non-urban, high-quality hospital), it's hard to beat Switzerland.

Sep 17, 2009#204

tegid

Adammon;256375][quote=Chazwozel][quote=Adammon said:
Chazwozel said:

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

Click to expand...

And some people disagree.. Awoooooo...scary.

Those people like to subscribe to the best current American healthcare system. "Don't get sick."[/QUOTE]

No, because 'those people' understand that an equilibrium between the aggregate supply and demand of health care cannot be reached where the cost approaches anything that you would consider 'affordable'. We simply don't have the resources to do so. And with an aging population, demand only increases while supply stays the same putting upward pressure on prices.

And even if the government takes control of healthcare, there will still be people dying because of the rationing of these limited resources. Except now instead of the rationing being as a result of "who can pay the $$$" it will be "what will cost the gov't the most $$$".[/QUOTE]

You can argue that it's very complicated for it to work in the US, but not that it won't work. There's examples of public healthcare working well in other countries. (Also, I will repeat over and over that public healthcare does not mean that private healthcare won't exist!)

---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 AM ----------

Also, I do believe healthcare is a right. I guess it's a social one, though.

Sep 17, 2009#205

Seraphyn

TeKeo said:
Healthcare insurance is mandatory for 99% of the population. Every Swiss healthcare company has to offer a basic, government-regulated, plan to anyone who asks for it, and they are not allowed to profit beyond a certain amount on the mandated plan.

However, they can charge whatever the market allows them to on supplementary/comprehensive insurance with only a few stipulations.

This is exactly how healthcare over here works as well.

Sep 17, 2009#206

Chazwozel

tegid;256888][quote=Adammon;256375][quote=Chazwozel][quote=Adammon said:
Chazwozel said:

And yes, I am a firm believer of someone with an aliment going to the doctor and saying, "treat my condition please." And have that be fully covered by the government.

Click to expand...

And some people disagree.. Awoooooo...scary.

Sep 17, 2009#207

GasBandit

Anybody notice how it's Adammon making reasoned arguments, while Chaz makes fallacious assertion after assertion? I, too, was counting the posts until he broke out the Appeal to Authority fallacy for him holding a PhD in a tangentially related field, and nobody's saying poor people can't have health care except the lefties who use it as a straw man, probably pinching their nose and saying it in a singsong voice?

I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Sep 17, 2009#208

tegid

Spain.

I'll give you that our country is like 6 or 7 times smaller population wise, but actually healthcare is NOT run on an national level, so what does it matter?

Our economic system is fucked, but still our healthcare works damn well. Of course it's not single payer. You always have an option to go private even if the public one is payed from your taxes.

Anyway, I must admit all the discussion has convinced me that you need a tort reform before anything else. THEN reform the rest. Or at the same time at least...

Sep 17, 2009#209

JCM

GasBandit said:
The only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Of course Canada having more people south is due to dependence in the US, not due to the fact that further North is fucking freezing. :rolleyes:

Sep 17, 2009#210

tegid

Also, if like that Messiah guy said a while ago and I've been getting from the late conversation, part of the high cost of healthcare comes from people who get very expensive life or death care and don't pay for it, why not integrating that into a system paid by all through the state, since you are already paying for it somehow? Also that way they may get some cheaper preventive treatment and you all win?

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

Well fuck I just looked at the Canada map and JCM is right, that point of your argument is pretty weak. (I had already thought more or less what he said, but it became even more apparent with the map)

Sep 17, 2009#211

JCM

tegid said:
Spain.

I'll give you that our country is like 6 or 7 times smaller population wise, but actually healthcare is NOT run on an national level, so what does it matter?

Our economic system is fucked, but still our healthcare works damn well. Of course it's not single payer. You always have an option to go private even if the public one is payed from your taxes.

Anyway, I must admit all the discussion has convinced me that you need a tort reform before anything else. THEN reform the rest. Or at the same time at least...

There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

Sep 17, 2009#212

Adammon

My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

Sep 17, 2009#213

Chibibar

JCM said:
There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

This is pretty much it. Each States pretty much govern themselves on many level. The Federal level do have some laws but a lot of stuff are control by the states.

If this doesn't change, then the federal healthplan won't work (I still think it won't work for the U.S.) each states will do things differently

Sep 17, 2009#214

tegid

Adammon said:
My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

Chibibar;257141][quote=JCM said:
There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

This is pretty much it. Each States pretty much govern themselves on many level. The Federal level do have some laws but a lot of stuff are control by the states.

If this doesn't change, then the federal healthplan won't work (I still think it won't work for the U.S.) each states will do things differently

[/QUOTE]

And what's the problem with that? I don't see it, as long as you set common minimums or something.

Sep 17, 2009#215

AshburnerX

tegid;257188][quote=Adammon said:
My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

Sep 17, 2009#216

Adammon

tegid;257188][quote=Adammon said:
My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

All of it sounds really good, and I really like the bolded part. I can't help but wonder, though: will 'rich' people who stay private be happy to pay through their taxes the money lacking on the lower-tier-insurance price?[/quote]

MSP costs in BC are monthly:

$54 for one person
$96 for a family of two
$108 for a family of three or more

I think the issue with 'the rich' (and me for that matter) are they don't want freebies being given away. Once something is 'free', it is quickly abused. Look at crowded ERs filled with people that could have easily seen their GP for things like the flu or a sprained ankle. As long as there is a premium being paid, then there is some responsibility on the part of the user. At the same time, MSP requires a Health Card being issued. This while rankle the losertarians who believe that it somehow infringes on the right to privacy, but I've yet to see any way to determine the citizenship requirements for a health care plan. They don't want illegals using it, but they don't want people to have to prove they aren't illegal.

Sep 17, 2009#217

ThatGrinningIdiot!

GasBandit said:
I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.

Sep 17, 2009#218

Adammon

BlackCrossCrusader;257220][quote=GasBandit said:
I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?

Sep 17, 2009#219

crono1224

Probably relating that US is the sole reason for why they live so close to the border.

Sep 17, 2009#220

Adammon

crono1224 said:
Probably relating that US is the sole reason for why they live so close to the border.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that.

Sep 17, 2009#221

tegid

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Sep 17, 2009#222

Adammon

tegid said:
No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.

Sep 17, 2009#223

AshburnerX

I'd also imagine weather and climate conditions play a serious part in it as well. I can't imagine it would be much fun living in those islands close to the arctic, for example.

Sep 17, 2009#224

crono1224

No, because trade, non-hospitable land and weather conditions are little or no factor.

Sep 17, 2009#225

Chazwozel

Adammon;257394][quote=tegid said:
No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Sep 17, 2009#226

Adammon

Chazwozel;257488][quote=Adammon;257394][quote=tegid said:
No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.[/QUOTE]

Or, you know, the fact that the northern part of the country is cold as fuck. Granted trade is another factor. It's easier to trade close to the border, but it wouldn't be an issue if the northern area of Canada wasn't a tundra (trains/planes) and if more people were able to live and work there. There aren't many people that live in northern Alaska either; most of that population is located along the southern coast due to better weather, trade, and travel.[/QUOTE]

While I appreciate the American consideration that a place is 'cold as fuck', Canadians are a fairly hardy breed. You aren't really getting into sub-zero temperatures year 'round until well north of the Territories border. I would wager that places like North Dakota are actually colder at times than the west coast of BC would ever be. Plus large metropolitan areas like Edmonton, Price George, Rimouski, etc. sit fairly far north.

Trade plays a far greater role in population distribution than climate in Canada. Places like Fort McMurray which have seen a tremendous population explosion despite what would be considered 'intemperate' conditions at best.

Sep 17, 2009#227

Covar

Adammon;257553][quote=Chazwozel;257488][quote=Adammon;257394][quote=tegid said:
No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Sep 17, 2009#228

Kitty Sinatra

I don't see how 33 million people living in a 100 mile ribbon across 5 and half time zones can be called "crammed." We could house the whole population of Western Europe in that ribbon and they'd probably have more space than they do now.

Sep 17, 2009#229

Mr_Chaz

Chibibar said:
Do you think party B deserves healthcare?

Yes. Why? Because you never know what impact the lack of healthcare would have. Maybe they would be productive in the future. Maybe their illness/death would spur them/their family and friends into some form of positive action. Maybe just because it would be really shitty to see someone else die just because they're a bit of a meany.

Adammon said:
Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

Try the UK, where they're basically all publicly funded. Do you want to tell me that Oxford and Cambridge aren't up to scratch?

Adammon said:
I don't even know if regulation is the key, but competition. The fewer the number of firms in a market, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the monopoly outcome (high price above marginal cost, low output). (A Nash equilibrium in an economic market is where all firms in the market are choosing their best output strategy given what the other firms are doing.) The larger the number of firms, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the perfectly competitive outcome (lower price equal to marginal cost, higher output).

While I'm hesitant to use the word 'collusion' to describe the actions of insurance companies, whatever they're doing isn't working...

Economics talk eh? I haven't studied for a while but I'll try to keep up for a while...

I like your idea of decreasing the monopoly, but reaching the perfect Nash equilibrium also requires having zero inequalities in the market. Perfect knowledge, no barriers to entry, no existing monopolising powers and so on. Since that doesn't exist in the whole world your capitalist ideal for the medical industry is flawed. This is where I have a problem with it. Not in the idea, but in the execution: there is no such thing as a perfectly competitive market, and you should know that. So regulation is required to actually increase the competitive nature of the market.

The other problem with treating the healthcare industry in purely capitalist terms as many people here seem to be trying to do is that it completely ignores the externalities. For example the social benefits of someone not being dead. Think about this, a cleaner may not earn enough to afford insurance, becomes ill, dies. Who's going to empty your bins, mop your floor? Their health matters to YOU, not just them. A simple example, but this is an element too often ignored in these sorts of debates.

Sep 17, 2009#230

Chibibar

Mr. Chaz, I see where you are coming from, but after working with some charities, I notice that some people just don't want to contribute anymore and just live off everyone's else penny.

I guess the question if true opportunities does open to anyone and freely, maybe these "freeloaders" will take up on it and become fruitful members of society, but that kind of resources doesn't exist or at least not enough of it. (depending where you are)

Sep 17, 2009#231

Papillon

Adammon;257232][quote=BlackCrossCrusader;257220][quote=GasBandit said:
I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?[/QUOTE]

- It's difficult to predict how Canadian military spending might change if we were not near the US -- it could easily change very little as Australia ($23 billion) and Spain ($18.9 billion) spend a similar amount of money to Canada ($18.3 billion). By contrast health care spending is closer to $160 billion. Military spending might even go down; for example if we deployed fewer troops in Afganistan.
- Although health care in Canada is national in scope, it is actually mostly administered at a provincial level. Since US states (excepting California, New York, Texas and Florida) have similar populations to Canadian provinces, a system administered at the state level would have similar bureaucracy to the Canadian system. Actually a US state would have advantages over a Canadian province since states are much smaller than provinces.

Sep 17, 2009#232

Adammon

Mr_Chaz said:
Adammon said:

Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

Click to expand...

Try the UK, where they're basically all publicly funded. Do you want to tell me that Oxford and Cambridge aren't up to scratch?

I asked the question; I didn't make a judgement either way.

Adammon said:
I don't even know if regulation is the key, but competition. The fewer the number of firms in a market, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the monopoly outcome (high price above marginal cost, low output). (A Nash equilibrium in an economic market is where all firms in the market are choosing their best output strategy given what the other firms are doing.) The larger the number of firms, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the perfectly competitive outcome (lower price equal to marginal cost, higher output).

While I'm hesitant to use the word 'collusion' to describe the actions of insurance companies, whatever they're doing isn't working...

Adammon said:
Economics talk eh? I haven't studied for a while but I'll try to keep up for a while...

I like your idea of decreasing the monopoly, but reaching the perfect Nash equilibrium also requires having zero inequalities in the market. Perfect knowledge, no barriers to entry, no existing monopolising powers and so on. Since that doesn't exist in the whole world your capitalist ideal for the medical industry is flawed. This is where I have a problem with it. Not in the idea, but in the execution: there is no such thing as a perfectly competitive market, and you should know that. So regulation is required to actually increase the competitive nature of the market.

We don't need a 'perfectly' competitive market, we need a 'more' competitive market. Regulation can increase the barriers to entry as it becomes harder/more expensive to meet that regulation. Regulating prices also acts as an externality on marginal-cost pricing in oligopoly like healthcare - if there's no profit to be made, or there's little profit to be made, the likelihood of other companies entering into the industry approaches zero. The long run supply curve notes a profit of zero remember.

The other problem with treating the healthcare industry in purely capitalist terms as many people here seem to be trying to do is that it completely ignores the externalities. For example the social benefits of someone not being dead. Think about this, a cleaner may not earn enough to afford insurance, becomes ill, dies. Who's going to empty your bins, mop your floor? Their health matters to YOU, not just them. A simple example, but this is an element too often ignored in these sorts of debates.

There are social factors of course. I'm not going Galt here

Sep 17, 2009#233

Rob King

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Sep 17, 2009#234

Adammon

Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.

Sep 17, 2009#235

Krisken

Adammon;258007][quote=Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Sep 17, 2009#236

Adammon

Krisken;258009][quote=Adammon;258007][quote=Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

[/QUOTE]

9 women can pop out a kid in 1 month!

Or so I've been led to believe

Sep 17, 2009#237

Krisken

Adammon;258026][quote=Krisken;258009][quote=Adammon;258007][quote=Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

[/quote]

9 women can pop out a kid in 1 month!

Or so I've been led to believe[/QUOTE]
And then they'd be instantly transplanted to the north.

I like you, you're funny!

Sep 17, 2009#238

Rob King

Krisken;258009][quote=Adammon;258007][quote=Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

[/QUOTE]

Basically this.

You're going to see the population shift a little bit towards the north in the next few decades, but no matter how hearty a people we are, it is simply easier to live in the southern areas of the country.

There's oil there? Great! Let's build a town around it.

Where do we get the lumber? And, how much farmland is in Nunavut anyways? How easy is it to maintain highways and other travel links? And what other industries are around that can contribute to a population growth? I can't think of many. The only other one that makes sense to me is Whaling, and well ... for some reason we don't like the sound of that.

Sep 17, 2009#239

Adammon

Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

Sep 17, 2009#240

Armadillo

Adammon said:
Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's close to Vancouver?

(Sorry, I'm a diehard Minnesota Wild fan.)

Sep 17, 2009#241

Adammon

Armadillo;258128][quote=Adammon said:
Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's close to Vancouver?

(Sorry, I'm a diehard Minnesota Wild fan.)[/QUOTE]

Wild fans exist? Hmmm, the North Stars I can understand, but not the Wild.

Sep 18, 2009#242

Shakey

So, healthcare as a right is now about Canada eh?

For my part, no I don't think it's a right. I think as a nation it is needed to better ourselves, but it's not a right. Calling it a right is simply playing on emotions and not the reality of the situation.

Sep 18, 2009#243

Rob King

Adammon said:
Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's not the only one, but it's a big one.

My point isn't simply that bad climate = less population. I live in freaking Newfoundland, for god's sakes. I curse my forefathers every day for not staying on the ship an extra week and landing somewhere warm like Virginia.

No, my point is that if you took the US altogether out of the picture, and eliminated the trade factor completely, you would still have a very similar distribution. Perhaps a little more spread out, but not by much. Vancouver island might look a little bit more evenly distributed, for example, but maybe not. There's also the force of habit to be considered. Why start a new town further north, when we started one in 1785 just right over there? There will have to be a pretty damn good reason, and I don't know Vancouver Island well enough to say if there is or isn't a good reason in the north of the island.

Another case study that I'm more familiar with is my own home. Newfoundland isn't that affected by the American border, since we're an island quite distant from the states. About half of our population lives in a section of our province which is literally 1/100th of the whole. That one is just force of habit. Climate doesn't even factor in that much. We settled St. John's pretty early on, and there's no point to establish a new city anywhere else now, even if the west coast has better weather and is just more beautiful in general.

If we get some shipping lanes, or oil towns established up north there will be a population boom, but a few factors (one of the biggest being the climate and the holistic impact that will have on industry) will keep it from ever becoming as densely populated as the near-border areas.

Sep 18, 2009#244

ThatGrinningIdiot!

Adammon;257232][quote=BlackCrossCrusader;257220][quote=GasBandit said:
I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?[/QUOTE]

I never said GB's assesment was incorrect, and it wasn't my intent to imply that it was. However, he could've relayed his point easily without the underlying derisive 'tone' in his post.

Sep 18, 2009#245

Kitty Sinatra

mr_thehun said:
Canada's population is not just concentrated along the border. It is also far more crowded along the border and at the coast.

Kind of. It's crowded in three spots, one on the West Coast, one on the St Lawrence, and one on Lake Ontario (which happens to be part of the the St Lawrence Seaway) . . . so yeah, international shipping seems to play a role. Which would mean it's not just access to the US that affects our population distribution, but our access to the whole world.

Sep 18, 2009#246

Covar

Rob King;258034][quote=Krisken;258009][quote=Adammon;258007][quote=Rob King said:
Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Sep 18, 2009#247

Adammon

mr_thehun said:
I really hope people stay away from North Vancouver Island.

I love Tofino. great place to surf in December. Last time I went it was already far more crowded then when I first started going there.

Not to mention that people tend to move to were people already live. Unless you're one of the crazy hippies that already lives in Uclulet or Tofino.

Canada's population is not just concentrated along the border. It is also far more crowded along the border and at the coast.

I just got back from Tofino on a week long vacation

Love the diving too.

Sep 18, 2009#248

Armadillo

Adammon;258137][quote=Armadillo;258128][quote=Adammon said:
Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's close to Vancouver?

(Sorry, I'm a diehard Minnesota Wild fan.)[/QUOTE]

Wild fans exist? Hmmm, the North Stars I can understand, but not the Wild.[/QUOTE]

Eight-season sellout streak, including pre- and post-season. Besides, the Wild have been better than the North Stars ever could have dreamt of, excluding the Cup Finals runs in '81 and '91.

Sep 18, 2009#249

Adammon

Armadillo;258404][quote=Adammon;258137][quote=Armadillo;258128][quote=Adammon said:
Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

Sep 18, 2009#250

Adammon

Bah, my google ad now is the "Obama Care - Stop him now" ad

Thanks a lot thread

Sep 18, 2009#251

Rob King

Covar;258303][quote=Rob King said:
Basically this.

You're going to see the population shift a little bit towards the north in the next few decades, but no matter how hearty a people we are, it is simply easier to live in the southern areas of the country.

There's oil there? Great! Let's build a town around it.

Where do we get the lumber? And, how much farmland is in Nunavut anyways? How easy is it to maintain highways and other travel links? And what other industries are around that can contribute to a population growth? I can't think of many. The only other one that makes sense to me is Whaling, and well ... for some reason we don't like the sound of that.

How about Server Farms and Data Centers? With constant cold temperatures I bet they could run real efficient.[/QUOTE]

That would probably be good, but there are the other problems: with the cost of construction, transportation, and the fact that you'll have to ship all your food all the way up ... even if it would be great for those sorts of things, it would probably be too expensive (both for whatever business and prospective employees) and uncomfortable for anyone to bother.

Sep 18, 2009#252

strawman

Rob King;258471][quote=Covar;258303][quote=Rob King said:
Basically this.

You're going to see the population shift a little bit towards the north in the next few decades, but no matter how hearty a people we are, it is simply easier to live in the southern areas of the country.

There's oil there? Great! Let's build a town around it.

Where do we get the lumber? And, how much farmland is in Nunavut anyways? How easy is it to maintain highways and other travel links? And what other industries are around that can contribute to a population growth? I can't think of many. The only other one that makes sense to me is Whaling, and well ... for some reason we don't like the sound of that.

How about Server Farms and Data Centers? With constant cold temperatures I bet they could run real efficient.[/quote]

That would probably be good, but there are the other problems: with the cost of construction, transportation, and the fact that you'll have to ship all your food all the way up ... even if it would be great for those sorts of things, it would probably be too expensive (both for whatever business and prospective employees) and uncomfortable for anyone to bother.[/QUOTE]

Google's already doing that - cooling system-less servers meant for the northern climates. They've really worked hard to make their servers hands-off, remote monitoring, and load shedding/balancing so no need to have people around.

-Adam

Sep 18, 2009#253

GasBandit

Socks and Barney - I don't always agree with them, but they usually make me chuckle and often bring up things I hadn't considered -

Sep 18, 2009#254

Rob King

stienman said:
Google's already doing that - cooling system-less servers meant for the northern climates. They've really worked hard to make their servers hands-off, remote monitoring, and load shedding/balancing so no need to have people around.

-Adam

Awesome, and that sort of helps my point. The area is good for that sort of work, but Google is putting all this effort into not cursing poor humans to live in that place.

Sep 18, 2009#255

strawman

Rob King;258499][quote=stienman said:
Google's already doing that - cooling system-less servers meant for the northern climates. They've really worked hard to make their servers hands-off, remote monitoring, and load shedding/balancing so no need to have people around.

-Adam

Awesome, and that sort of helps my point. The area is good for that sort of work, but Google is putting all this effort into not cursing poor humans to live in that place.[/quote]

Eh, it's a double edged sword. If it's not a fun place to live, then there aren't many people there, which means that the electricity and internet costs are going to be higher, and the servers will be further from the users who will actually use them.

-Adam

Sep 18, 2009#256

Krisken

Adammon said:
Bah, my google ad now is the "Obama Care - Stop him now" ad

Thanks a lot thread

Mine's been Ann Coulter- Free! for days. I didn't even know she was locked up.

Sep 18, 2009#257

Adammon

Krisken;258637][quote=Adammon said:
Bah, my google ad now is the "Obama Care - Stop him now" ad

Thanks a lot thread

Mine's been Ann Coulter- Free! for days. I didn't even know she was locked up.[/QUOTE]

No, but she should be!

Sep 18, 2009#258

Espy

GasBandit said:
Socks and Barney - I don't always agree with them, but they usually make me chuckle and often bring up things I hadn't considered -

Great strip! It makes a really solid point about the real need for reform.

Sep 20, 2009#259

AshburnerX

Saw this today.

Sep 22, 2009#260

JCM

A good comparison of healthcare in US, Singapore, France and UK

Also, the link explains how each one functions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm

Also

Sep 22, 2009#261

Krisken

JCM, is that chart made like that so we are forced to look at the numbers? Egads, those circles are goofy to look at.

Oct 1, 2009#262

Chazwozel

Krisken said:
JCM, is that chart made like that so we are forced to look at the numbers? Egads, those circles are goofy to look at.

Oct 4, 2009#263

Deschain

Someone has probably already made this joke, but no, it's a left thing.

Oct 7, 2009#264

The Lovely Boehner

Deschain said:
Someone has probably already made this joke, but no, it's a left thing.

I don't think they have. Nice one :cool:

Oct 10, 2009#265

BoringMetaphor

Does anyone else think the concentration on the healthcare debate is absolute idiocy?

America will change its healthcare system, it has to, the costs associated with it are so much more than other countries and are continuing to rise. Certainly other countries' systems aren't the best and are also facing rising costs, but no one to the degree of America. There's simply no question that a change must occur.

Yet the debate has consumed the nation! When there are much more important threats to deal with, like Iran, Iraq, like whatever environmental changes are occurring, like Afghanistan, like Pakistan (!), any of number of MUCH MORE crucial problems for the world and thus the US position in it, why on earth would the republicans, or anyone, decide to focus the nation on something like healthcare?

It boggles my mind. There's is no "good" solution in stopping the healthcare debate from progressing. Stopping change from occurring here is not a success. Making this an issue which will get the Democrats/Obama out of office is not a success. This might get the Republicans re-elected, but it will destroy the United States in the process. Plus make the world really shitty for the rest of us.

Oct 10, 2009#266

JCM

BoringMetaphor said:
Does anyone else think the concentration on the healthcare debate is absolute idiocy?

America will change its healthcare system, it has to, the costs associated with it are so much more than other countries and are continuing to rise. Certainly other countries' systems aren't the best and are also facing rising costs, but no one to the degree of America. There's simply no question that a change must occur.

Yet the debate has consumed the nation! When there are much more important threats to deal with, like Iran, Iraq, like whatever environmental changes are occurring, like Afghanistan, like Pakistan (!), any of number of MUCH MORE crucial problems for the world and thus the US position in it, why on earth would the republicans, or anyone, decide to focus the nation on something like healthcare?

It boggles my mind. There's is no "good" solution in stopping the healthcare debate from progressing. Stopping change from occurring here is not a success. Making this an issue which will get the Democrats/Obama out of office is not a success. This might get the Republicans re-elected, but it will destroy the United States in the process. Plus make the world really shitty for the rest of us.

I find the hilarity of not bitching when its tax cuts, military spending and Iraq war

Oct 10, 2009#267

Bowielee

BoringMetaphor said:
Does anyone else think the concentration on the healthcare debate is absolute idiocy?

America will change its healthcare system, it has to, the costs associated with it are so much more than other countries and are continuing to rise. Certainly other countries' systems aren't the best and are also facing rising costs, but no one to the degree of America. There's simply no question that a change must occur.

Yet the debate has consumed the nation! When there are much more important threats to deal with, like Iran, Iraq, like whatever environmental changes are occurring, like Afghanistan, like Pakistan (!), any of number of MUCH MORE crucial problems for the world and thus the US position in it, why on earth would the republicans, or anyone, decide to focus the nation on something like healthcare?

It boggles my mind. There's is no "good" solution in stopping the healthcare debate from progressing. Stopping change from occurring here is not a success. Making this an issue which will get the Democrats/Obama out of office is not a success. This might get the Republicans re-elected, but it will destroy the United States in the process. Plus make the world really shitty for the rest of us.

But... but... death panels are going to kill my grandma [durr]

Oct 11, 2009#268

Nile

Bowielee said:
But... but... death panels are going to kill my grandma [durr]

I wouldn't worry about that.

Oct 11, 2009#269

Bowielee

Nile;272838][quote=Bowielee said:
But... but... death panels are going to kill my grandma [durr]

Oct 11, 2009#270

AshburnerX

Bowielee;272841][quote=Nile;272838][quote=Bowielee said:
But... but... death panels are going to kill my grandma [durr]

I wouldn't worry about that.[/QUOTE]

I love how the right wing took "living will" and turned it into "death panels".

BTW, Is this whole "fuck anyone who isn't me" attitude that is becoming prevelant in the US bothering anyone as much as it bothers me?[/QUOTE]

It's because we're a two party system, making every election a "Us Vs THEM" fight. If we had multiple parties, it wouldn't be so bad. Nothing would get done (still :rolleyes:

) but the antagonism would die down.

Forums