View Full Version : American Socialism
Divinus Arma
06-05-2008, 20:45
I invite you to paint your vision of American Socialism, be that dystopic or eutopic.
Those of you who know me, know my politics. Let me just say that I am rethinking my understanding of policy within the context of individual opportunity and responsibility.
anelious phyros
06-05-2008, 20:48
Paint? What do you mean by paint?
Don Corleone
06-05-2008, 20:52
It took me a long time to understand why a bunch of people who are on the surface, rational, reasonable and intelligent (namely, the Europeans) would embrace socialism to such a strong degree. You don't see that many unemployed pot-smoking 20 somethings playing video games 24-7, so what gives.
And then it dawned on me, we're not talking about the same economic system at all. I'm not certain I completely understand European Socialism yet, but one thing is clear, it's definitely not American socialism. American socialism is all about handouts, college students going to university for 9 years, that sort of thing. *shiver*
There are some good, nay, vital, programs that come out of socialism. Nobody wants to read about granny eating cat food or a 5 year old being adopted on the black market.
But in my mind, socialism always down to one fundamental question.... Do you think your government can do a better job of taking care of the people than the people can do for themselves.
And in America, that answer is a earth-booming resounding NO
anelious phyros
06-05-2008, 20:56
Okay oaky, you've made your point.
And I sir totally agree. Even though from america. But still it's alot better then some places. You've got to look at what you got like freedom. A lot of countries dream of freedom. The Russian Govt. dosn't even let you leave!
Ser Clegane
06-05-2008, 21:17
college students going to university for 9 years, that sort of thing. *shiver*
Indeed - these things would of course never happen here in Europe/Germany :smug:
...
uhm
...
wait
:oops:
HoreTore
06-05-2008, 21:43
American socialism is all about handouts, college students going to university for 9 years, that sort of thing. *shiver*
It should be about demanding what is rightfully yours, IMO.
The press asked a retired labour top(either gerhardsen, hågensen or lie, not sure which) a while ago what he thought was the best thing socialism had done in this country. His answer was that people no longer had take their hat off when they talked to the director.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-06-2008, 01:42
It took me a long time to understand why a bunch of people who are on the surface, rational, reasonable and intelligent (namely, the Europeans) would embrace socialism to such a strong degree. You don't see that many unemployed pot-smoking 20 somethings playing video games 24-7, so what gives.
And then it dawned on me, we're not talking about the same economic system at all. I'm not certain I completely understand European Socialism yet, but one thing is clear, it's definitely not American socialism. American socialism is all about handouts, college students going to university for 9 years, that sort of thing. *shiver*
There are some good, nay, vital, programs that come out of socialism. Nobody wants to read about granny eating cat food or a 5 year old being adopted on the black market.
But in my mind, socialism always down to one fundamental question.... Do you think your government can do a better job of taking care of the people than the people can do for themselves.
And in America, that answer is a earth-booming resounding NO
I think where you go wrong is in thinking of Europe as Socialist. In Britain we currently have a New Labour government and we aren't Socialist, or what you call "Liberal". I can't speak for the other European countries but in Britain the status quo has to do with the aftermath of WWII. The Welfare State was created under the slogan, "A Country Fit for Heroes to Live In" as I recall.
The basic principle is that everyone has the right to certain things, which should be free at the point of source. Mismanagement has allowed the system to break down but the list is basically: Law & Order, Education, Healthcare, the Fire Service.
So, basically you have the same right to get a new hip because you pay taxes as you do to have your house put out when it is on fire.
Additionally, no one who cannot earn enough money to support themselves should suffer for it. This is the tricky bit the political parties argue about, i.e. where to draw the line.
Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
anelious phyros
06-06-2008, 02:20
Smart..... :think:
Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
Not all things are best left to the market.
Come on ,Beirut, using the FBI, CIA, and military?
Gaius Scribonius Curio
06-06-2008, 03:00
Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
Because then their key aim would be to make a profit, and thus their idea, to 'protect' the American people, would be completely undermined. Just in case anyone didn't get there.
Socialism is obviously much more prevalent in Europe than America, not necessarily in Britain, but definitely on the continent. I'd also say that Britain is more socialist than the US, merely because the US is the antithesis of socialist concepts.
CountArach
06-06-2008, 03:01
American Socialism = European Conservatism.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2008, 03:25
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
Because the United States government jeoulously guards it's monopoly on force, and reserves the right to stick its nose in everyone else's business. Additionally, aspects of the military have been privitized, to mixed results - mostly because the current market solution is unsuitable for occupation. Of course, neither public nor private solutions to stomping and conquering other countries is just.
The point is that all the departments I mentioned work for the government for the safety of the general public. (So to speak.) The Fed also acts upon the market to manage and protect the financial health of the public. Why should the physical health of the public be any different?
anelious phyros
06-06-2008, 03:53
You've got a point.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2008, 03:57
What if I object to all three? :punk:
Divinus Arma
06-06-2008, 05:58
I challenge you, and especially those who would react with skepticism, offer me your vision.
A mere NO does not serve your argument. Don Corleone, that is beneath you Sir. Please indulge me.
Others, please at least try and keep to the point and offer a higher perspective of the theoretical consequences of certain, or the entirety of, socialized industries.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2008, 06:07
In answering the original question, I think it would happen as a result of something along the lines of the Great Depression, probably in combination with a nationalistic and/or xenophobic movement as well. A national-socialist party, if you will. In the name of "freedom" we'll lick unemployment (everyone must Do Their Part) and beat the Japs terrorists. Healthcare and the like will be useful not only as a means to fuel the war machine but also a way to placate any of the masses who hold on to the provincial notions of liberty.
I cannot imagine us instituting significant and lasting socialized public healthcare over the long term because we simply cannot afford it.
CountArach
06-06-2008, 08:25
I cannot imagine us instituting significant and lasting socialized public healthcare over the long term because we simply cannot afford it.
Not with current taxes at least. Now, reverse Bush's tax cuts...
If I wanted to be really cheeky I could suggest this as an example of American Socialism:
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
Although in truth I'd say the founding fathers were more Liberals than they were Socialists.
I would definitely argue though that some organisations should exist first and foremost to provide a service, not to make a profit. The disastrous privatisation of the UK postal service is an example of this: The new managers seem to have decided that the most profitable way to run a postal service is not to deliver any post or have any post offices, and thus seem intent on closing down the company entirely.
Having a few key services run centrally to maximise their public service benefits the economy as a whole, even if they do not make a profit themselves. All countries have this to some degree, even the US, so I suppose you could call this American Socialism. It's simply a question of balance between a Socialist and Capitalist system; either extreme is unworkable.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-06-2008, 13:17
It seems to me that it depends entirely on what you deam an essential service. Apparently healthcare is not deemed so in the US. The Post Office is a parralel example in the UK. The EU's concept of "Competion = Better Service" has failed miserably when confronted with a service designed to be a monopoly and work as such.
anelious phyros
06-06-2008, 13:17
Well anything extreme will fail some how!
Like terroist are called extremsist sometimes. You don't here the whole world clapping for them do you?
Proletariat
06-06-2008, 14:05
If I wanted to be really cheeky I could suggest this as an example of American Socialism:
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
Although in truth I'd say the founding fathers were more Liberals than they were Socialists.
What is socialist about 'all men being created equal?' :dizzy2:
Do you think your government can do a better job of taking care of the people than the people can do for themselves.
Why does it always come down to this question? Cause personally I think it's ridiculous and hasn't to do with Socialism at all. Socialsim in it's fundaments isn't about the government bossing around for the greater good or anything. Socialism is about caring for people who don't have it as well as you have. It's about protecting them and yourself from becomming victims of others trying to make money.
Why is the goverment also needed? Well just because of this specific problem. Man is egocentral, man is greedy. If he can become rich, by making others poor. He will usually do it. Then I can only conclude, that it's mad to have people and their coorporations , who have exactly that goal in control of the welfare of others. They don't give about welfare at all, just their pockets. This is why a government can be helpfull.
Now back to: Do you think your government can do a better job of taking care of the people than the people can do for themselves.
There's a few problems with this. The governement in socialism (except in extreme versions, communism ect... but this is not like socialsm is in Europe, were talking about moderate democratic socialism.) isn't taking care of you, it just will protect you and possibly help you, so that you can more easily take care of yourself. A person or a family can't be a succesfull lasting economy on it's own. You may work hard all your life, you may earn decently or even better. However one unfortune thing can ruin this. Lets say an illness with a real costly cure. In a socialist healthcare system others will help you pay the cost. But then you think why should the others, well because the others will get the same benefits. It's just charing when times are good, and recieving back what you get when times are worse. The more persons take care after each others wealth fare, the more stable you wealth fare is. Just as a large economy is more stable than a tiny one, a socialist health care system is in overall better than a personal care system. Except for the very rich, and I guess this is where the problem lies in America. Cause like I said if a person can enrich himself of another person, he will.
What is socialist about 'all men being created equal?' :dizzy2:
Well, equality is one of the central ideas of socialism.
But I didn't mean it as a serious comparison. I was just giving a silly counterexample to the usual silly "well Stalin was a socialist, so all socialists are like Stalin" argument.
Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.
However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly
Bonding contracts
Equality of information
Property rights
Competition
... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.
Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.
There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.
Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...
So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.
On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.
So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.
Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.
However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly
Bonding contracts
Equality of information
Property rights
Competition
... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.
Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.
There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.All good up to this point. An additional metric I like here is "Can an individual reasonably opt out?" For example, a national defense benefits everyone and an individual can hardly decide to go and buy the services of another army to protect their house. The same with roads ect.
Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...
So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.By that reasoning neither do auto mechanics.... or IT professionals or any of a number of fields. If a consumer knew everything about a service that he was hiring another to do, why would he need to hire a professional? He'd be one. I think the problem here is more of a customer service one. From my experience, the medical field is more about being vague and obfuscating than being open and candid. I think wrong-headed government policies are at least partially to blame for this.
Socializing medicine creates a government run healthcare monopoly. Monopolies are almost always inefficient, wasteful, and unresponsive to customer needs. (see roads) Is this what we want for ourselves? We can see shades of it already in our current mess of a system- I don't care for it.
HoreTore
06-06-2008, 16:40
By that reasoning neither do auto mechanics.... or IT professionals or any of a number of fields. If a consumer knew everything about a service that he was hiring another to do, why would he need to hire a professional? He'd be one.
But when you need repairs on your car, you have the time to check around, hear other peoples experiences etc.
If your finger is chopped off, you have no choice other than the closest hospital. You can't drive to another city 50 miles away...
Ironside
06-06-2008, 17:00
On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.
So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.
The problems with the R&D is why you should develop a cheap medicine, considering how expensive it is to develop new products and also the expansion issue. AKA you cannot expand the market by making people sick, but then you claim that they're sick and would feel much better with this medicines.
How much have the pill market expanded in the US for the last 5 years? :juggle:
BTW if I've understood the medical market correctly, the socialised markets are huge buyers and not suppliers of the medicines. That part is left on the market. Ever heard of the company Astra-Zenica? Well, Astra was a Swedish company and it's still considered to be a Swedish company (in Sweden atleast).
The point being that having the medical departments as buyers compared to private persons will affect on what is developed.
Devastatin Dave
06-06-2008, 17:40
Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
Defence contrators...:laugh4:
Proletariat
06-06-2008, 17:49
Well, equality is one of the central ideas of socialism.
But I didn't mean it as a serious comparison. I was just giving a silly counterexample to the usual silly "well Stalin was a socialist, so all socialists are like Stalin" argument.
Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.
anelious phyros
06-06-2008, 18:02
Aha. I just never thought of it as any endorsement of socialism, more likely the opposite. Since all men are created equal, they should all have equal opportunities.
Tell that to are govt.! I wonder what they would argue?
Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2008, 18:14
Socialized medicine is the hallmark of a civilized society and would well befit a nation as inherently great as the US of A.
As for the argument that the private sector manages things better than the government, I would ask, then, why the FBI, CIA, military, and justice departments are not handed over to a for-profit corporation in order to provide a better service for the American people?
The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?
CR
Kagemusha
06-06-2008, 18:33
The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?
CR
And that doesnt happen in your system?
Hey buddy, here in America we can choose between bankrupting our families or dying of a disease we can't afford to treat. That's freedom, you unwashed foreigner. Don't you dare question our freedom.
Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2008, 18:56
Not as such. People die on waiting lists for organs, but that's due to a shortage of organs, not doctors and treatment. No one dies because the government says other people must have the treatment first. But then, since we don't have socialist health care, we don't have great shortages of doctors. Socialist fiddling with markets will inevitably create shortages when a good's cost is kept below market levels.
We need more consumer control over their health care dollars; the opposite of socialism, and tort reform like that in Texas which has decreased insurance premiums. Look at how Wal-Mart has provided very low cost medicines.
Socialism in general I despise. Now, I think workers should be able to unionize (though it rarely helps) but that the government should stay out of business and not favor any side.
But socialism is simply a drag on the economy that negatively hurts everyone even if it does help a select few (like the unemployed - why should they get benefits for not being able to find a job?). Though that is different from helping out those who can't find work due to illness, injury, etc.
@Lemur - would you like to answer my question to Beirut or set up strawmen?
CR
Its helpful to look hard at individual areas and ask, honestly, "Will the market work here?" The benefits of the market are too numerous to go into, but obviously if a field can be served by a functioning market, that's the best solution.
However, there are conditions that must be met for a market to function properly
Bonding contracts
Equality of information
Property rights
Competition
... etcetera. Lots of elements need to be in place for a market to work.
Americans, as a whole, agree that some things are not appropriate for a market. Policing our communities is not farmed out to the lowest bidder. Fire protection is not shopped between competing firms. Road building, by and large, is not financed by universal toll roads.
There are good reasons for all of these. Take roads, for instance. If I control the road between Huntsville and Janesburg, I have a de facto monopoly, and the only way to create market conditions would be to build alternate roads between the two towns, or to build a tramway, or a dirigible service. This would be insanely wasteful, as well as resulting in, at best, a duopoly rather than a monopoly.
Health care is a bit of a puzzler to this Lemur. It lacks many of the characteristics that allow a market to function. Equality of information? Are you kidding me? What are you gonna do, shop around for a cardiologist with your extensive knowledge of cardiology? How can there ever be a level playing field between a doctor and a patient? Between normal people and drug companies? How you gonna weight the relative value of provaxilcom and lipolizor? Heck, most practicing MDs find it impossible to keep up with the deluge of me-too drugs ...
So on the one hand, health care doesn't lend itself to market functions, as we see every day in the U.S.A.
On the other hand, treating health care as a public service has costs and dangers, as anyone looking at European budgets can attest. There's an innovation cost as well: without the profit motive, medical and drug development slows to a crawl. This is why people with bucks come from other countries to get cutting-edge treatment in the U.S.A. No market, no R&D budgets, no race for cures, no advanced treatment.
So like I said, it's a puzzler. I can see very valid arguments for socialized medicine. And I can see good reasons to embrace free-market medicine. Anything, frankly, would be an improvement on the half-fish half-goat system we have now.
Great post, Lemur
I was thinking this the other day. My father hurt his knee while outside. He had to see a specialized doctor, get an MRI, and most likely get his knee cut open by a specialized surgeon.
All of this is going to cost in the thousands of dollars. Luckily for our family we have good health insurance and we pay a small deductible and the insurance company covers 80% of the costs.
Although 80% is covered, we are still on the hook for a couple grand. Now my family inst fabulously wealthy, but we are fairly well off. If this is a pain in the ass for us, I'm wondering how the average American gets this done without such good health insurance.
Health care really is a tricky business. On one hand I really don't want government run medicine, but on the other hand the current situation is absurd.
Kagemusha
06-06-2008, 19:00
Hey buddy, here in America we can choose between bankrupting our families or dying of a disease we can't afford to treat. That's freedom, you unwashed foreigner. Don't you dare question our freedom.
Here in Euro Socializtan we can only wait for death in home,park or local pub since the line to treatment is so long. Thank God a at least the funeral services are private owned, otherwise we might be rotting in line waiting to get buried.:laugh4:
EDIT: With all seriousness CR things are not as black and white you make them look. For example here in cold Northern swamp called Finland, you have public healthcare, but also private clinics, if you want and can afford to get private health services. The public services cover all the basic needs, but if you dislike the public services you can have a private insurance and use private services. Weirdly enough our public healthcare isnt known for its lack of efficiency and by your standard of thinking should have been overrun by the private services, which has not happened.
@Lemur - would you like to answer my question to Beirut or set up strawmen?
I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?
-edit-
Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?
The problem with socialism in America is that we just aren't wired for it. Long ago, people came to this country to do their own thing, be left alone, and to generally extend their middle fingers across the water when they got off the boat. It will take a long time for this individualistic mentality to transform to something more suited to a large national community.
And the fact that we can't trust our government to do anything right doesn't help.
Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2008, 21:35
I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?
:shrug: It seemed like more than simply a joke. I mean, I'm all for 'why do you hate freedom' jokes, but I took a bit of umbrage at the suggestion people have to choose between bankruptcy and health. Meh. Probably shouldn't have, I suppose.
Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?
I guess I'm just a bit crazy. :beam:
But I shall try to be more crazy-funny instead of crazy-somber.
EDIT: With all seriousness CR things are not as black and white you make them look. For example here in cold Northern swamp called Finland, you have public healthcare, but also private clinics, if you want and can afford to get private health services. The public services cover all the basic needs, but if you dislike the public services you can have a private insurance and use private services. Weirdly enough our public healthcare isnt known for its lack of efficiency and by your standard of thinking should have been overrun by the private services, which has not happened.
That's nice, but in Canada private hospitals aren't allowed (though that might be changing in some recent court cases). I recall Beirut vigorously defending not letting anyone purchase private medical care.
CR
The Canadian Supreme Court found that citizens died while on waiting lists for treatments. How is that civilized?
CR
And Americans have died for lack of money to buy insurance and have died because their insurance, even when paid for, cut them off when they needed it most.
At least with socialized medicine the basic tenet of caring for all people equally is intact. What a marvelous statement of principle for a country to live by. For a country not to live by this principle is quite simply ghastly and socially backwards.
HoreTore
06-06-2008, 22:54
I'm with the canadian here.
Canada! The country of big forests, snow and medical treatment for everyone!! :smash:
Crazed Rabbit
06-07-2008, 07:05
And Americans have died for lack of money to buy insurance and have died because their insurance, even when paid for, cut them off when they needed it most.
At least with socialized medicine the basic tenet of caring for all people equally is intact. What a marvelous statement of principle for a country to live by. For a country not to live by this principle is quite simply ghastly and socially backwards.
So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?
Huh.
CR
Ironside
06-07-2008, 09:12
So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?
Huh.
CR
For the results to triumph would require that the results on average are better in the US... :juggle:
Isn't the original point with medicare and medicaid to correct the lack of insurance?
So the principles triumph over the actual results, then?
Huh.
CR
Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.
As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.
In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."
I'll stick with my system.
If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me. :sunny:
Declaration of Independence
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
US Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
God Bless America :unitedstates:
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-07-2008, 17:19
If you're so keen on the idea, you can pay the taxes for it, too. We don't fund Social Security nor Medicare, we have a ballooning debt and McCain won't leave Iraq for a hundred years. Ultimately we will, of course, when our economy collapses, of course. And Bush's tax cuts aren't going to change it one way or another.
anelious phyros
06-07-2008, 19:20
I've gotta ask - Why do some of you people even care?
I mean think about it, how the heck will it affect you in the long run if your not in America? It all seems pretty stupid to me.
Is it just good gossip or something?:coffeenews:
Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.
As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.
In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."
I'll stick with my system.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, Beirut. I'll it at that.
If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me.
Declaration of Independence
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
US Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
God Bless America
It's funny you mention these two documents. The declaration holds no legal weight, and the ironic thing about your post is, I find no where in the US Constitution that allows the government to regulate health care. The preamble doesn't do a thing.
Devastatin Dave
06-07-2008, 21:00
I make a silly joke, and this is your humorless response? Geez, Rabbit, either respond in kind or stay off the green. You've gotten so dour lately. What's wrong, dude?
-edit-
Remember that silly Dunkin' Donuts scarf thread? I get the feeling you went all the way through that without cracking a smile. Let the silly in again, Rabbit. Look to your namesake! How can a Crazed Rabbit be sour-mouthed and sober all the time?
Will the "funny bone" be covered under the new socialized system? Funny bone, hu, get it!!! Yuk, yuk, yuk, OK, I'll go back to my drinking now....
Crazed Rabbit
06-07-2008, 21:16
Principles are the foundations of civilized nations and where social programs begin. If a plan is merely a common base for changes, then one should start with a good plan. Socialized medicine is a sound principle and a good plan.
As for results, Canada has a higher life expectancy for women and a lower infant mortality rate than the US. Our cancer death rates are within a percentage point of each other as far as I can tell. So it's not like we're living in Outer Oogabooga where the doctor comes to town once a month on a donkey.
In Canada the sick are sometimes told, "Come back later." In the US the sick are sometimes told, "Don't come back at all."
I'll stick with my system.
You still haven't explained how having people die while on waiting lists is 'civilized'. Imagine a nation, a wealthy, industrialized western nation that claims to take care of its citizens' medical needs, but lets some die as they wait for medical treatments. That doesn't sound very civilized. Indeed, it sounds like a huge problem; a huge failure of the state in the duties it has assumed.
You know the original draft for the DoI included the right of property? Something socialism tramples over with abandon.
CR
seireikhaan
06-07-2008, 22:03
You know the original draft for the DoI included the right of property? Something socialism tramples over with abandon.
CR
Hmm? Please explain how socialism in of itself tramples this right. We've got socialism now, yet people aren't getting kicked out of their houses or having their actual property stolen.:inquisitive: Btw, nice red herring anyways.
Correlation doesn't equal causation, Beirut. I'll it at that.
Cor-a-who doesn't cause a what?
IThe declaration holds no legal weight,
I never said it did.
...and the ironic thing about your post is, I find no where in the US Constitution that allows the government to regulate health care. The preamble doesn't do a thing.
Neither does the Constitution allow the government to regulate airplanes and nuclear reactors, but they do anyway. Also, the Constitution is a working document, open to amendments. There is nothing in the Constititution that forbids either the regulation of health care nor the future inclusion of a health care amendment in the Constitution itself.
The premable, regardless, is a thing of literary beauty and meaning.
Crazed Rabbit
06-07-2008, 22:38
Hmm? Please explain how socialism in of itself tramples this right. We've got socialism now, yet people aren't getting kicked out of their houses or having their actual property stolen.:inquisitive: Btw, nice red herring anyways.
The government takes your property for "the greater good" - wealth redistribution. The point is the founding fathers were not socialists.
Cor-a-who doesn't cause a what?
The correlation between longer lives and socialist medicine in Canada does not mean socialized medicine causes longer lives (causation).
CR
If one looks at the passages of these two remarkable documents, they say a lot about principles, the common good, and even about the people being happy. Looks like sound socialism to me. :sunny:Funny- I don't see anything of the sort in those excerpts. :shrug:
seireikhaan
06-07-2008, 23:27
The government takes your property for "the greater good" - wealth redistribution. The point is the founding fathers were not socialists.
:inquisitive: That implies that there should be NO government whatsoever; how else it it supposed to fund anything other than through taxes or sale of goods? The founding fathers realized that NO taxation whatsoever didn't work when the Articles of Confederation left the government totally impotent; why do you think they scrapped it 6 years after it was signed into legislation?
Crazed Rabbit
06-07-2008, 23:58
You don't understand, it does not imply that. Redistribution of wealth is different from taxes to build roads and the like.
CR
Why are taxes to build roads so fundamentally different from taxes to build hospitals?
The correlation between longer lives and socialist medicine in Canada does not mean socialized medicine causes longer lives (causation).
CR
Actually, I know what he meant, but that kind of talk makes me dizzy.
It's a combination of factors, obviously, that lead to a longer life span and lower infant mortality rate, but the state of one's access to a good health service should be counted as one of those factors.
Funny- I don't see anything of the sort in those excerpts.
Perhaps because you're not a roaring left-leaning sentimentalist like me. But I see lots in there that goes beyond the "every-man-for-himself" tenet that some read into the American Dream.
This line for example: laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Beauty! Twice in the DoI they mention the word happiness. How cool is that! How does a conservative (which I feel I may tag you as without worry of insult) interpret that word and its use in a document such as this?
Cor-a-who doesn't cause a what?
It is very true unless you don't like shades of grey.
Neither does the Constitution allow the government to regulate airplanes and nuclear reactors, but they do anyway.
Nuclear weapons are through the military which the constitution allows and I have no idea about airplanes.
Edit: Just remembered that the interstate commerce clause would give the Feds jurisdiction to regulate air travel.
Also, the Constitution is a working document, open to amendments. There is nothing in the Constititution that forbids either the regulation of health care nor the future inclusion of a health care amendment in the Constitution itself.
I 100% agree. However, the proper steps must be taken for this to happen.
The premable, regardless, is a thing of literary beauty and meaning.
Never disputed this.
Crazed Rabbit
06-08-2008, 01:24
Actually, I know what he meant, but that kind of talk makes me dizzy.
It's a combination of factors, obviously, that lead to a longer life span and lower infant mortality rate, but the state of one's access to a good health service should be counted as one of those factors.
You know what they say about assuming. Until there's a study that proves causation between socialized medicine and better health, you shouldn't assume that.
Why are taxes to build roads so fundamentally different from taxes to build hospitals?
Roads are primarily built through taxes on gasoline - those who use the roads more pay more. Not the same for socialized medicine. So you have people getting treatment for minor things just because they can, and so you have a shortage of doctors, and so some people die whilst waiting.*
CR
*Basically.
Well, to respond somewhat seriously, for most people 80%+ of the money spent on their healthcare will be in the last three months of their lives. When you're going down for the final count, it gets expensive to try every trick to beat back the reaper.
Honestly, I don't think we should spend so much on people who are old and dying. And based on my own experience in my family, I'm not clear that the people doing the dying want it either. You would not believe the kinds of hoops we had to jump through to allow our father to die with dignity. If we hadn't fought, they would have taken all sorts of pointless, expensive and questionable procedures to extend his life by about a week.
Instead, allowing him to pass naturally was more hassle, more paperwork, more resistance and more headaches. Everyone on the medical side would have been happier if we had opted for invasive procedures.
Just sayin'. When people talk about folks "dying on the waiting list," I certainly would like a little more context before I jump on that pony. Some sort of triage has to occur since the appetite or healthcare is bottomless. We do it by pricing people out of procedures; the Canucks do it by waiting lists. I'm not convinced their method is worse.
Don Corleone
06-08-2008, 02:53
Here, here, Mr. Lemur. Well said.
I think Poor Bloody Infantry hit the point with the difference between taxes to build roads and taxes to build hospitals. We've never had 100% capitalism in this country, and we likely never will. Much like 100% communism, it only exists in text books and on limited scales, like gold rush squatter camps.
DA, you asked for more on my "NO". Well, simply put, i don't think the government does many things well. The FBI & CIA somebody mentioned are the same ones that allowed 20 hijackers to take over 4 airplanes simultaneously and fly them into buildings, killing thousands of people in the process. Did I mention they had intelligence that supplied all the dots all along, they just couldn't connect them? Mainly because they're so damned territorial and won't talk to each other.
The single best metaphor I can think of for how I view turning certain endeavors over to the government, or 'public', is public restrooms. Would you really prefer to use the loo in the train station to the one at your house?
One of the biggest problems I have with socialized medicine is that it fails to tackle the fundamental problem of health care... Limited resources. Like Mr. Lemur pointed out, for some people, when their lives are on the line, 10 million of the government's money seems like a reasonable amount to spend. At the end of the day, there will always be more 'experimental procedures' and new drugs to try out. Not that they'll likely help, but they will make the doctor richer. People don't recognize that, and they don't understand caps on health care spending. Right now, they hate insurance companies because the insurance companies deny new, untested and costly treatments. Switch to socialized medicine, and they'll hate the government.
I'm not for a complete free market w/ regards to health care however. As with most elements of human behavior, the wise answer to black or white is what is the correct shade of gray. I suspect the right shade varies from nation to nation. I think we could use some tax benefit/penalty incentive programs that encourage insurance companies to provide care for a broader swath of folks.
So while I appreciate Beirut's self-anointed role as grand-thinker for the American public, for better or worse, we've made our decisions down here and we're living with them. Nothing keeps the masses of oppressed we supposedly abuse and jto whom we deny basic human rights from migrating northwards. They stay because after weighing everything out, they still have a better deal here.
I'm sympathetic to low income families and the decisions they have to make around health care. Hell, with the way most companies have cut back on insurance coverage, we're all facing tough decisions. But that's the point, I still have the decision to make. If I want to bankrupt myself making certain Jillian and Allison receive the care they need, I can. I don't want rationing that tells me 'sorry, you're not allowed to pay for the coverage, and the wait is 2 years'.
So while I appreciate Beirut's self-anointed role as grand-thinker for the American public, for better or worse, we've made our decisions down here and we're living with them. Nothing keeps the masses of oppressed we supposedly abuse and jto whom we deny basic human rights from migrating northwards. They stay because after weighing everything out, they still have a better deal here.
Oh peshaw! (Is that how you spell it?) I'm a great fan of the US, warts and all. As for being it's "self-anointed grand-thinker", I prefer to think of myself as that endlessly nagging voice in the back of the American head.
The US is a wonderful, even wondrous, country. It is exactly because of that, and the principles the US was founded on, that some of us foreign-types find your for-profit health care that throws the poor and sick to the insurance wolves for consumption and disposal so... outrageous. How can a country so rich, so powerful, that breeds men like Lincoln and Martin Luther King, that puts men on the moon and virtually owns outer space, not find it in its purse nor its heart to guaranteee that each of its citizens have the basic right of health care without regard to income. The US spends trillions on weapons and war, yet it has children who are uninsured with no health coverage.
To those of us on the ouside looking in, it is catastrophically backwards and not at all in keeping with the rhetoric espoused from your leadership regarding American values.
Look at this. I was just on The Astronomy Picture of the Day and look what it is:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/scoop_phoenix.jpg
Look at that American flag on Mars. How in the name of God can the same country that's got remote controlled vehicles and work platforms on other planets also say it's not in the best interests of its citizens to guarantee them equal access to health care regardless of their ability to pay.
It quite simply boggles the mind.
CountArach
06-08-2008, 05:35
I've gotta ask - Why do some of you people even care?
I mean think about it, how the heck will it affect you in the long run if your not in America? It all seems pretty stupid to me.
Is it just good gossip or something?:coffeenews:
1. I care about all people in the world regardless of if they are my countrymen (Only caring about those people who you happen to share a geographic similarity with is stupid). We are all humans and I think that Socialism is in the best interest of humanity and hence Socialism in America is in the best interests of Americans IMO.
2. So much of the world economy is based around America and in the long run I think that Socialism is much more sustainable, particularly in regard to environmental sustainability.
3. As I just said, the environment.
Etc, etc.
Oh and who could forget lack of anything better to talk about?
discovery1
06-08-2008, 06:59
Look at this. I was just on The Astronomy Picture of the Day and look what it is:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/scoop_phoenix.jpg
Look at that American flag on Mars. How in the name of God can the same country that's got remote controlled vehicles and work platforms on other planets also say it's not in the best interests of its citizens to guarantee them equal access to health care regardless of their ability to pay.
It quite simply boggles the mind.
They aren't related at all Beirut.
Edit: Well both would require processing large amounts of info and lots of money but that's it.
Banquo's Ghost
06-08-2008, 09:08
This is a fascinating discussion, and though I am fairly firmly in Beirut's camp here, I am learning a lot about how American's view their approach to health provision. None of us would deny that it is one of the greatest challenges to modern societies precisely because of the point Don makes: the limit of resources.
One of the biggest problems I have with socialized medicine is that it fails to tackle the fundamental problem of health care... Limited resources. Like Mr. Lemur pointed out, for some people, when their lives are on the line, 10 million of the government's money seems like a reasonable amount to spend. At the end of the day, there will always be more 'experimental procedures' and new drugs to try out. Not that they'll likely help, but they will make the doctor richer. People don't recognize that, and they don't understand caps on health care spending. Right now, they hate insurance companies because the insurance companies deny new, untested and costly treatments. Switch to socialized medicine, and they'll hate the government.
This is interesting. So the insurance company regulates which treatments are made available, is that right? How do they do this? Is it a clinical decision or a monetary one? Let's take the example of an average family, which has maintained its insurance (I understand most people get their health insurance through their employer - is that right?). If the wage earner suffers a debilitating illness - removing them from work - are the previous insurance premiums sufficient to provide long-term care? Does the insurance one has paid have a cap related to those premiums, as with say life insurance? One buys a limited fund, yes? If this assumption is true, what then happens if one's illness requires treatment beyond that fund?
Back to who takes the decisions. If there is a treatment which is more expensive than one's insurance will/can afford, but will return one back to work much quicker, would the insurance company judge that they will be better off funding that treatment or do they stick to the fund limit?
You see, all of the above apply to socialised medicine as well, except the fund is provided by the taxpayer - and is therefore apparently endless - but because of the call on those resources, is rationed by time rather than money. Most systems that I know also have a governmental/independent body that makes resource decisions at the strategic level - ie no-one can have that drug because its efficient only in producing profits for the pharmaceutical industry. It seems to me - and the answers to the above will make me more informed - that both systems ration treatment, and in both cases is the decision in someone else's faceless hands - a corporate or a government.
I'm sympathetic to low income families and the decisions they have to make around health care. Hell, with the way most companies have cut back on insurance coverage, we're all facing tough decisions. But that's the point, I still have the decision to make. If I want to bankrupt myself making certain Jillian and Allison receive the care they need, I can. I don't want rationing that tells me 'sorry, you're not allowed to pay for the coverage, and the wait is 2 years'.
To further my understanding then: if you do bankrupt yourself to provide this care, what happens then, God forbid, if one of them still needs care? Where does the money come from?
They aren't related at all Beirut.
Gah! They are related. That picture shows a national, technological, financial, and, dare I say, existential commitment of America to science, adventure, and progress. That Tonka toy on Mars is not simply a dry laboratory test with statistical results; it is an extension of humanity (and certainly of American nationalism), and a step towards the betterment of our species. It's quite simply evolution in the making, one small step at a time. And this sort of evolution does not (should not) affect only the mechanical, but the moral as well.
It is inconceivable that scientific progress on this scale, and the very wonder of it's sheer adventure, should be remote from the national conscience, that the two should have no symbiosis other than the dry facts regarding geographic place of origin. If one looks at the American flag on that Martian landscape, it's not just a tag saying "Look where I came from", it's a boast of "Look what we can do". And a quite righteous boast at that. How can the same people who would take all the steps required to enable such an incredible feat to be realized, disassociate the greatness of their national achievements from the very base and fundamental structures of their society?
No doubt I am a lefty bleeding heart over-emotional liberal with a drawer full of commie red underwear, but I do see how a nation that lands spaceships on oher planets yet denies adequate health coverage to millions of it's own children presents a dichotomy of head smunching proportions.
InsaneApache
06-08-2008, 12:54
At least with socialized medicine the basic tenet of caring for all people equally is intact. What a marvelous statement of principle for a country to live by. For a country not to live by this principle is quite simply ghastly and socially backwards.
Then we have our civilised socialists in the UK.
Doctors told them that because they had chosen to pay for the drug, Nexavar, they would have the remainder of their free National Health Service care withdrawn. They are now faced with bills for every scan, blood test and appointment with a consultant.
Diane Winston will soon undergo a series of scans at an estimated cost of £800 each, adding to the £3,000 that they pay for Nexavar each month.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4087576.ece
To allow people to die in a western democracy to fulfill a political ideology is spiteful, hateful and vindictive.
Okay interesting discussion.
Now some would say that the insurance company decides what health care you recieve. While that might be what many would like to believe - one can still seek the health care one wants regardless of what the insurance company wants. Now they might find a way not to pay thier percentage - but given that the doctor pushes for the health care along with your own efforts will insure you get the health care you want.
I say this from experience - insurance wanted me to send my son to an oral surgeon for the removal of his wisdom teeth. I chose a lesser treatment where the teeth are removed under a local instead of a general. The insurance wanted to fight be on the process - the doctor and dentist worked with me. Guess what it didn't cost many any more out of pocket then doing what the insurance company wanted me to do. So while I understand the arguement about socialized medicine - why would I want to exchange the insurance company for a governmental agency with its bueraracy added to the process? Both are a big pain in the rear end - at least with the insurance company - I have the threat of taking my business elsewhere.
HoreTore
06-08-2008, 17:06
Both are a big pain in the rear end - at least with the insurance company - I have the threat of taking my business elsewhere.
....and with the government system, you have the threat of voting for the other guys.
Okay interesting discussion.
Now some would say that the insurance company decides what health care you recieve. While that might be what many would like to believe - one can still seek the health care one wants regardless of what the insurance company wants. Now they might find a way not to pay thier percentage - but given that the doctor pushes for the health care along with your own efforts will insure you get the health care you want.
I say this from experience - insurance wanted me to send my son to an oral surgeon for the removal of his wisdom teeth. I chose a lesser treatment where the teeth are removed under a local instead of a general. The insurance wanted to fight be on the process - the doctor and dentist worked with me. Guess what it didn't cost many any more out of pocket then doing what the insurance company wanted me to do. So while I understand the arguement about socialized medicine - why would I want to exchange the insurance company for a governmental agency with its bueraracy added to the process? Both are a big pain in the rear end - at least with the insurance company - I have the threat of taking my business elsewhere.
I must say, the idea of those without insurance being refused medical treatment makes me uncomfortable enough, but the idea of the insurance company actually trying to intervene and overrule the medical professionals on my course of treatment for their own financial ends makes my blood run cold.
It ain't pretty, Poor Bloody Infantry, but somebody's gotta draw the line somewhere. The appetite for healthcare is without end. So either you have:
Individuals deciding how much they're willing to pay, or
Insurance companies deciding how much they're willing to pay, or
The nation deciding how much it's willing to pay
There are problems with all three scenarios. But the truth of the matter is that everyone, everywhere cannot be given every medical procedure that might be warranted. Especially in the last three months of their lives.
discovery1
06-08-2008, 19:07
It is inconceivable that scientific progress on this scale, and the very wonder of it's sheer adventure, should be remote from the national conscience,
Yes it is. It describes the reality in the USA rather well I think.
How can the same people who would take all the steps required to enable such an incredible feat to be realized, disassociate the greatness of their national achievements from the very base and fundamental structures of their society?
Like I said, one task doesn't have any of the same problems associated with it that the other does.
Like I said, one task doesn't have any of the same problems associated with it that the other does.
Doing the dishes is a task. Taking out the garbage is a task. Caring the people of your own country is a responsibility.
I don't question a man who neglects his tasks. I do question one who neglects his reponsibilities.
....and with the government system, you have the threat of voting for the other guys.
The two are hardly comparable, Horetore, and we both know that.
Strike For The South
06-08-2008, 23:38
....and with the government system, you have the threat of voting for the other guys.
There the same guys......
Gaius Scribonius Curio
06-09-2008, 01:58
Doing the dishes is a task. Taking out the garbage is a task. Caring the people of your own country is a responsibility.
I don't question a man who neglects his tasks. I do question one who neglects his reponsibilities.
And that perhaps is the crux of the argument.
I'd like to point out that I'm not American and have no real understanding of American politics and so most of what I say will probably be completely off-topic. But...
Don Corleone's argument earlier is that if a more socialist line was taken with healthcare, limited resources would render the system unworkable. This would be due to the hatred that currently insurance companies have racked up being transferred to the government. The sad part is that he is probably right.
Having said that I also agree with what Lemur is saying. Of the three scenarios he mentioned above, surely the nation deciding is the fairest way of deciding. There is also the possibility that this would influence the government to spend more on healthcare.
No matter how much we crave perfection, there is never a perfect system. There is always going to be someone losing out. With socialist policies the people who have been elected by popular vote can then make the desicions.
And btw the way I am aware that I am extremely naive.
No matter how much we crave perfection, there is never a perfect system. There is always going to be someone losing out. With socialist policies the people who have been elected by popular vote can then make the desicions.
Sweet. :sunny:
With issues critical to the public good, what's wrong with having democratically elected people managing those institutions? It is done with the law, with law enforcement, with the military and space exploration, with transport safety, nuclear regulations, immigration, and environmental protection. Even the institutions to be managed by elected officials are chosen to be managed by elected officials by elected officials.
Why is all of this freedom loving capitalism but when government managed health care comes in to play it's out and out communism?
Oh, by the by, this crock of lard about losing the right to chose your doctor under socialized medicine is right up there with the moon being made of green cheese. When you go to emergency you get who you get, that's standard everywhere I'm sure. But there's nothing stopping me from saying I would rather have a Medicare paid visit with Dr. X instead of Doctor Y.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-09-2008, 02:57
Why is all of this freedom loving capitalism
By and large it ain't.
HoreTore
06-09-2008, 10:02
Oh, by the by, this crock of lard about losing the right to chose your doctor under socialized medicine is right up there with the moon being made of green cheese. When you go to emergency you get who you get, that's standard everywhere I'm sure. But there's nothing stopping me from saying I would rather have a Medicare paid visit with Dr. X instead of Doctor Y.
In our system, we have a system called "fastlegeordning" ("setdoctorarrangement" or something...) which means that I have been assigned a personal doctor, and I will always use him. Unless of course if I want another doctor, then I can simply call the authorities, and I get another doctor assigned to me.
You can always request a second opinion, that's pretty much a universal element of medicine as far as I'm aware. But what I would dread would be a situation where the insurance company decides they won't pay for me to go to my regular trusted doctor because he is prescribing too expensive courses of treatment, and instead I will have to go to a doctor nominated by them who will do things on the cheap.
The problem is, it's not really in the insurance company's interests for me to recieve the best care; they would far rather I simply die quickly and cheaply, or even better end up having to foot the bill myself due to some technicality even though I've paid my premiums.
It is in the interests of the government to care for its people's health; healthy workers are good for the economy and if the system doesn't work they will lose votes. They set a budget for healthcare which is expected to be spent; some more expensive treatments may be denied to everyone, but everyone can expect to be treated for most things without argument because the money has already been set aside to do so. Insurance companies, on the other hand, would ideally like to spend no money at all on patient care as this will maximise their short-term profits. My experience of insurance companies is that they are unscrupulous organisations who will try anything they can and exploit every loophole to get out of paying.
So I suppose the real question is, who do I trust more to take care of my health, a government beauracracy with may be unwieldy and inefficient but which has a big stake in my wellbeing, or a slick, streamlined insurance company whose only interest is in dealing with me as cheaply as possible? Given that choice, I'll take the wasteful centralized system every time.
rory_20_uk
06-09-2008, 12:35
In our system, we have a system called "fastlegeordning" ("setdoctorarrangement" or something...) which means that I have been assigned a personal doctor, and I will always use him. Unless of course if I want another doctor, then I can simply call the authorities, and I get another doctor assigned to me.
Yes, and few countries of the world have as much spare cash as Norway. You float on oil and use hydroelectrcity yourselves; you don't have much expenditure of armed forces either.
Whilst by no means a bad thing, it does mean a level of healthcare that others can't match.
~:smoking:
So I suppose the real question is, who do I trust more to take care of my health, a government beauracracy with may be unwieldy and inefficient but which has a big stake in my wellbeing, or a slick, streamlined insurance company whose only interest is in dealing with me as cheaply as possible? Given that choice, I'll take the wasteful centralized system every time.
The problem is that neither can be trusted to take care of your health. The only person that can be trusted to take care of your health - is yourself.
Which ever system you use you still have a beuruarcy that decides what care you get and how much.
With issues critical to the public good, what's wrong with having democratically elected people managing those institutions? It is done with the law, with law enforcement, with the military and space exploration, with transport safety, nuclear regulations, immigration, and environmental protection. Even the institutions to be managed by elected officials are chosen to be managed by elected officials by elected officials
You might want to look into this statement with a bit more detailed. Elected officals manage very little of the successful institutions.
Oversite yes - management no.
Military
Law enforcement
These instutions are successful because of the professionals in those organizations - not the elected officials.
immigration is a governmental failure
nuclear regulations is a medicore success
environmental protection - not something you want to claim as successfully managed by the government in the United States
Again I see you have ignored the basic principle of my arguement.
So while I understand the arguement about socialized medicine - why would I want to exchange the insurance company for a governmental agency with its bueraracy added to the process? Both are a big pain in the rear end - at least with the insurance company - I have the threat of taking my business elsewhere.
Logic dear Beruit - not emotional appeal will convince me to go with socialized medicine. So until one can adequate answer the above question the principle of socialized medicine does not compute with me. But then again as a tax payer who's income is alreadly taxed above 20% when one counts all the taxes I pay - convince me that socialized medicine wont increase the total taxes I pay by more then the current amount on medicial insurance and out of pocket expense for me - with my bi-polar wife my expense is about 9% of my income. Remember our discussions of the past - most counties in the United States have a county hospital that treats the uninsured at the taxpayer expense or free health care clinics.
and here is the crux of the arguement as presented by the candidates - no candidate has a plan that explains the cost of the program to the average taxpayer....
HoreTore
06-09-2008, 13:04
Yes, and few countries of the world have as much spare cash as Norway. You float on oil and use hydroelectrcity yourselves; you don't have much expenditure of armed forces either.
Whilst by no means a bad thing, it does mean a level of healthcare that others can't match.
~:smoking:
Uhm... Having a personal doctor you see every time instead of a random guy isn't more costly... It's just a bureaucratic change...
He doesn't do anything other than the random doctor would do, it's just that you get the same guy every time. And that doesn't make things more expensive.
The problem is that neither can be trusted to take care of your health. The only person that can be trusted to take care of your health - is yourself.
Fine and dandy. I'll eat lots of fish and avoid trans-fats. But if I need stiches for my next saw wound, I'm apt to seek assistance, though I'm sure with enough bourbon and a sewing kit I could find my inner Rambo and do the job myself.
You might want to look into this statement with a bit more detailed. Elected officals manage very little of the successful institutions.
Oversite yes - management no.
Indeed, you are probably correct.
Military
Law enforcement
These instutions are successful because of the professionals in those organizations - not the elected officials.
immigration is a governmental failure
nuclear regulations is a medicore success
environmental protection - not something you want to claim as successfully managed by the government in the United States.
Agreed, the government might not have the best people for all jobs, but I prefer someone I can vote out of office in charge as opposed to leaving the devilish details of my national social programs to the likes Kenneth Lay and his corporate Enronish ilk. (For example.)
Again I see you have ignored the basic principle of my arguement.
I would never debase myself or you by ignoring your opnions and principles, sir. I either failed to notice or was distracted before a proper response could hit the page.
So while I understand the arguement about socialized medicine - why would I want to exchange the insurance company for a governmental agency with its bueraracy added to the process? Both are a big pain in the rear end - at least with the insurance company - I have the threat of taking my business elsewhere.
If you have the choice of taking your health concerns along multiple avenues, I am sincerely happy for you. Nothing is more important than your health. My concerns rest with the tens of millions of those who have little or no choice.
As for the government being a pain in the rear end, of course they are. But unless we are to dissolve either our electoral systems and/or stage a revolution, we have to work with what we have.
Logic dear Beruit - not emotional appeal will convince me to go with socialized medicine.
You called me dear. I knew you had squishy Canadian blood in you. :sunny:
I understand the appeal to logic. I trully do. But cold logic alone does not create true effciency in social programs. There must be a, shall we say, human element involved. As I have repeated, ad nauseum, your own Declaration of Independence talks of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Happiness is an extremelly subjective, even ethereal word, anethema to the understood tasks and responsibilities of government, but there it is. If the documents your nation are founded upon use such words, then it is, IMHO, up to the nation to include those ideals in its functioning. Meaning, programs that deal specifically with the public good must have an emotional content involved in their structure.
So until one can adequate answer the above question the principle of socialized medicine does not compute with me.
If it's a question of money, we have lots of money. Gobs of it. Our two countries are filthy stincking rich. We're so rich we can afford to waste food, gas, and money itself with reckless abandon and we still enjoy a higher standard of living then most countries. It's not a question of money, it's a question of will and intellect. If we had those two qualities working properly, every single person in both of our countries could enjoy Star Trek level health care.
Now, given that neither of us are using our health resources as best we can, I at least prefer to have those resources managed by people (stupid as they are) who can be affected by public pressure, forced into action, and booted out of office every four years if required, as opposed to untouchable corporations answerable to no one but the bottom line.
But then again as a tax payer who's income is alreadly taxed above 20% when one counts all the taxes I pay - convince me that socialized medicine wont increase the total taxes I pay by more then the current amount on medicial insurance and out of pocket expense for me - with my bi-polar wife my expense is about 9% of my income. Remember our discussions of the past - most counties in the United States have a county hospital that treats the uninsured at the taxpayer expense or free health care clinics.
If the increased financial burden of paying higher taxes for socialized medicine is the same or close to what you pay for "extra" care for your family, I see it as a plus that you would then be guaranteed not to be cut off if your family requires even more care (God forbid), and that those payments would also gurantee that other Americans would not be cut off either.
As for the free community hospitals, I'm sure they do the best they can. But I doubt they can adequately care for the tens of millions who have no health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong (it will be your pleasure), I read that Canada spends roughly 11% of its GDP on health care to cover everyone and the US spends over 15% of its GDP to care for some of the people. If true, that shows that private health care is not helping with the economics of health care very much.
...and here is the crux of the arguement as presented by the candidates - no candidate has a plan that explains the cost of the program to the average taxpayer....
Get better candidates. ~:smoking:
Fine and dandy. I'll eat lots of fish and avoid trans-fats. But if I need stiches for my next saw wound, I'm apt to seek assistance, though I'm sure with enough bourbon and a sewing kit I could find my inner Rambo and do the job myself.
And rightly so - but workman's comp exists in the United States. So if I get hurt while working my employer has to insure I get adequate care in repair the damage I did to myself. Now if I am self-employed it would be my responsiblity to insure I got adequately repaired for the damage I do to myself from working.
Cant figure out the mindset that says the government has to repair my damage to myself.
Agreed, the government might not have the best people for all jobs, but I prefer someone I can vote out of office in charge as opposed to leaving the devilish details of my national social programs to the likes Kenneth Lay and his corporate Enronish ilk. (For example.)
Health care is not run by Kenneth Lay and his corporate ilk - emotional appeal arguements dont work with me on health care. I perfer the ability to immediately remove myself from the insurance company versus waiting until the next election...
If you have the choice of taking your health concerns along multiple avenues, I am sincerely happy for you. Nothing is more important than your health. My concerns rest with the tens of millions of those who have little or no choice.
Everyone has a choice Beruit I can go to any hospital and get immediate care regardless of my ability to pay - that is a law here. Now if I want extended care well its a matter of having insurance or using the county clinic. Again everyone has a choice - many just chose to believe that they dont have any.
As for the government being a pain in the rear end, of course they are. But unless we are to dissolve either our electoral systems and/or stage a revolution, we have to work with what we have.
Yep - remember my dear Beriut I am an adovate of small federal governments. Let the county and the state take care of social programs because it costs less and is easier to audit for goofy crap.
You called me dear. I knew you had squishy Canadian blood in you. :sunny:
American Mutt all the way.
I understand the appeal to logic. I trully do. But cold logic alone does not create true effciency in social programs. There must be a, shall we say, human element involved. As I have repeated, ad nauseum, your own Declaration of Independence talks of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Happiness is an extremelly subjective, even ethereal word, anethema to the understood tasks and responsibilities of government, but there it is. If the documents your nation are founded upon use such words, then it is, IMHO, up to the nation to include those ideals in its functioning. Meaning, programs that deal specifically with the public good must have an emotional content involved in their structure.
Again emotional content doesn't pay the bill - cold hard cash pays the bills. Come up with a program that doesn't bankrupt the country or my wallet and I will look at it. Until then emotional appeal only clouds the issue.
If it's a question of money, we have lots of money. Gobs of it. Our two countries are filthy stincking rich. We're so rich we can afford to waste food, gas, and money itself with reckless abandon and we still enjoy a higher standard of living then most countries. It's not a question of money, it's a question of will and intellect. If we had those two qualities working properly, every single person in both of our countries could enjoy Star Trek level health care.
Now, given that neither of us are using our health resources as best we can, I at least prefer to have those resources managed by people (stupid as they are) who can be affected by public pressure, forced into action, and booted out of office every four years if required, as opposed to untouchable corporations answerable to no one but the bottom line.
granted - but I want a workable plan before the government sticks it hand into healthcare. Governments are prone to fraud, waste, and abuse, more so then any corporate health insurance company. So until my government developes a plan - health care in the united states is still best done by the individual.
If the increased financial burden of paying higher taxes for socialized medicine is the same or close to what you pay for "extra" care for your family, I see it as a plus that you would then be guaranteed not to be cut off if your family requires even more care (God forbid), and that those payments would also gurantee that other Americans would not be cut off either.
Which is why I say I want a viable plan before the government gets involved in Health Care. Something that limits and takes into consideration the pains involved in changing the system.
As for the free community hospitals, I'm sure they do the best they can. But I doubt they can adequately care for the tens of millions who have no health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured.
Actually they do well given the resources that they have available. People still have to be responsible for how they live. If you live like a pig - guess what you eventually need more and more health care.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong (it will be your pleasure), I read that Canada spends roughly 11% of its GDP on health care to cover everyone and the US spends over 15% of its GDP to care for some of the people. If true, that shows that private health care is not helping with the economics of health care very much.
Sure it isn't. A better system is needed - never argued against that - only that emotional appeal does not provide an adequate solution to the problem. All that is presented by our candidates and elected officals is window dressing - give me a logical plan and explain how it will be implemented and I would support the candidate that does that. Unfortunately they havent gone past the emotional appeal process of socialized health care in the United States.
Get better candidates. ~:smoking:
I will probably vote for Louis this year - he is probably a better candidate then any we got running now.
And rightly so - but workman's comp exists in the United States. So if I get hurt while working my employer has to insure I get adequate care in repair the damage I did to myself. Now if I am self-employed it would be my responsiblity to insure I got adequately repaired for the damage I do to myself from working.
What about an accident at home? What about all sorts of things that can happen? What happens to the people who cannot afford insurance or are simply ineligible? if the community hospitals and free care were covering all the needs, there wouldn't be a problem, but there is.
Cant figure out the mindset that says the government has to repair my damage to myself.
It's the same mindset that says the government has to send the police to your house to get the bad guys out even though it was you that left the door unlocked. Or to send the fire department even though it was your own cigarette that started the fire. It's a social responsibility.
The mindset is simple: it's because I told them to.
Health care is not run by Kenneth Lay and his corporate ilk - emotional appeal arguements dont work with me on health care. I perfer the ability to immediately remove myself from the insurance company versus waiting until the next election...
From what I've seen and heard, I don't believe the health insurance corporations are run with the same level of altruism that you do.
Everyone has a choice Beruit I can go to any hospital and get immediate care regardless of my ability to pay - that is a law here. Now if I want extended care well its a matter of having insurance or using the county clinic. Again everyone has a choice - many just chose to believe that they dont have any.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit "let them eat cake" -ish. For-profit medicine cuts off the most vulnerable. What does a guy who's retired, has a fixed income, and is ineligible for insurance because he's had two heart attacks already do? His options at that point seem to boil down to "hope for the best". That doesn't do it for me.
Yep - remember my dear Beriut I am an adovate of small federal governments. Let the county and the state take care of social programs because it costs less and is easier to audit for goofy crap.
I'm more big government than you, no doubt, but probably less than you think. I don't want the government in my bedroom or my library, but I do want them running the major social programs.
Our health care laws are federal, but the provinces administer the services and regional health boards run the day to day.
American Mutt all the way.
We make good dogs.
Again emotional content doesn't pay the bill - cold hard cash pays the bills. Come up with a program that doesn't bankrupt the country or my wallet and I will look at it. Until then emotional appeal only clouds the issue.
Yes cold hard cash does pay the bills, but there is far more to lthe responsibilities and interaction between the people and its government representatives than cold hard cash. At least there better be. Regardless, there is no reason socialized medicine should bankrupt a country unless the country is stupid enough to let itself be bankrupted.
granted - but I want a workable plan before the government sticks it hand into healthcare. Governments are prone to fraud, waste, and abuse, more so then any corporate health insurance company. So until my government developes a plan - health care in the united states is still best done by the individual.
Again, I've seen the actions of corporate giants who hold holy naught but profit. I'll trust my government long before I trust the banks, the insurance companies, and the multi-nationals. At least I can kick my government in the keester when required.
Which is why I say I want a viable plan before the government gets involved in Health Care. Something that limits and takes into consideration the pains involved in changing the system.
It's a huge deal, no doubt. But one worth doing.
Actually they do well given the resources that they have available. People still have to be responsible for how they live. If you live like a pig - guess what you eventually need more and more health care.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but there are limits to that. People get sick. They get deathly ill, crippled, and are unable to work. They are affected by events beyond their control. Real life does not play fair. The whole point of a government is to manage programs that benefit the people, what other reason for government is there? Health care is essential to the people and the people have it within their right to insist that the government assist them.
Sure it isn't. A better system is needed - never argued against that - only that emotional appeal does not provide an adequate solution to the problem. All that is presented by our candidates and elected officals is window dressing - give me a logical plan and explain how it will be implemented and I would support the candidate that does that. Unfortunately they havent gone past the emotional appeal process of socialized health care in the United States.
Then tell them to.
I will probably vote for Louis this year - he is probably a better candidate then any we got running now.
Louis Obama? Barrack's brother?
If I may, and I ask because I truly don't understand, how do you see Joe Citizen's duty to his fellow American? Where does it start and stop?
rory_20_uk
06-09-2008, 20:01
Uhm... Having a personal doctor you see every time instead of a random guy isn't more costly... It's just a bureaucratic change...
He doesn't do anything other than the random doctor would do, it's just that you get the same guy every time. And that doesn't make things more expensive.
Of course it requires more staff: last 6 months I was a GP. No one wanted to see me as I was new and they didn't know me. They all wanted to see the partners of which there were 4. Us lot were merely overflow - we got used as people couldn't wait for as long as it would take to see the person they wanted.
Assuming you don't have to wait for a week or more for a GP appointment I imagine you have more doctors that we do; I accept that the NHS could loose a lot of managerial fat though.
~:smoking:
What about an accident at home? What about all sorts of things that can happen? What happens to the people who cannot afford insurance or are simply ineligible? if the community hospitals and free care were covering all the needs, there wouldn't be a problem, but there is.
Most assume something because they dont know. In fact if someone is injured - hospitals have to start initial treatment to protect life and limb without asking about ability to pay. So accidents are covered for immediate treatment.
It's the same mindset that says the government has to send the police to your house to get the bad guys out even though it was you that left the door unlocked. Or to send the fire department even though it was your own cigarette that started the fire. It's a social responsibility.
The mindset is simple: it's because I told them to.
Again the government does not have the responsiblity to insure I take care of myself - it is my responsibility to take care of myself. It has a responsiblity to insure the welfare of the people, providing emerancy treatment for those injuried does the exact same thing as the police and fire department does in your examble. In fact this emergency treatment is already law. So in this examble the United States is fulfilling your basic requirement as presented here.
So while you believe it applies to socialized medicine - I don't necessarily disagree - just that the government has a responsibility to have a workable plan before it attempts to change the current system. If you think Iraq is a mess - let the government attempt to change the medicial system without a thought out plan....
From what I've seen and heard, I don't believe the health insurance corporations are run with the same level of altruism that you do.
I trust them just as far as I trust the government to insure my personal wellbeing...which is not at all. I am the only person or enity that can insure my own well being.
I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit "let them eat cake" -ish. For-profit medicine cuts off the most vulnerable. What does a guy who's retired, has a fixed income, and is ineligible for insurance because he's had two heart attacks already do? His options at that point seem to boil down to "hope for the best". That doesn't do it for me.
He alreadly has coverage its called medicaid or medicare depending on his age. Most fixed income people get this coverage alreadly - they just have to apply for it. My income is alreadly taxed for both programs. So again he has the ability to take care of himself - if he choses to exercise that ability. Now the young student working at Mcdee's would better suit your arguement. He can not often afford to have insurance while working that job, but he often does not see the need for it either.
I'm more big government than you, no doubt, but probably less than you think. I don't want the government in my bedroom or my library, but I do want them running the major social programs.
That's the crux - major social programs in the united states are full of fraud waste and abuse. The two biggest ones were initially great social programs to help those on fixed incomes or out of work. Now they are abused to the point of causing the system to fail. Which is why I argue that any plan for socialized medicine must be well thought out and have a fundmental basic plan that addresses as many of the issues as possible, that is flexiable enough to survive contact with the first crisis, and prevents the problems of a large buerarcy from overwelming it. taking care of 300 million people where at least 40% are unfit will be a difficult mission for any government to assume with a viable plan, completely doomed to failure without one.
Our health care laws are federal, but the provinces administer the services and regional health boards run the day to day.
levels upon levels of buerarcy. Not much different then the insurance companies.
Yes cold hard cash does pay the bills, but there is far more to lthe responsibilities and interaction between the people and its government representatives than cold hard cash. At least there better be. Regardless, there is no reason socialized medicine should bankrupt a country unless the country is stupid enough to let itself be bankrupted.
Had a good look at the American governments debt lately? Getting closer and closer to that possiblity. Well we could always nationalize our debt.
Not that difficult if one looks at the norm of the American health posture. Aging population that wishes to prolong their lives which is the norm of the baby boomers also. Again arguing that socialized medicine is great is fine - but how would the government implement the system is the real issue.
Again, I've seen the actions of corporate giants who hold holy naught but profit. I'll trust my government long before I trust the banks, the insurance companies, and the multi-nationals. At least I can kick my government in the keester when required.
I just assume they are all crooks - and that I can make the best decisions concerning my personal wellbeing.
It's a huge deal, no doubt. But one worth doing.
Which is why I argue that until there is a viable plan that the government can not get their hands into it.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but there are limits to that. People get sick. They get deathly ill, crippled, and are unable to work. They are affected by events beyond their control. Real life does not play fair. The whole point of a government is to manage programs that benefit the people, what other reason for government is there? Health care is essential to the people and the people have it within their right to insist that the government assist them.
Talking to a man with a rapid cycle bi-polar wife, a bi-polar sociopathic step-son - things often get beyond an individuals ability to cope - that is what family and community are for to support you in times of trouble. Why should I demand that the government assist or take care of personal issues? What benefit does the whole get out of fixing the individual? Making demands of the government to fix all your problems does not fix your problem. You have a personal and social responsiblity to take care of them yourself. Government handouts should always be the last resort to any personal problem. Again the system alreadly has laws and functions to insure that everyone gets the necessary treatment to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. So the system already provides for the general welfare of the people. To insure I get my shots and take care of myself -is still a personal responsibility not a government responsibility
Then tell them to.
They have been told - to bad they don't know how to listen.
Louis Obama? Barrack's brother?
Nope our local frenchman who wants to be a Texan
If I may, and I ask because I truly don't understand, how do you see Joe Citizen's duty to his fellow American? Where does it start and stop?
To present yourself with honesty and intergity toward your fellow citizen. To provide what charity is needed to insure those in your community have the ability to achieve success if they chose to. To provide for the general welfare of the community by insure you keep the peace.
In other words Beriut I would give the shirt off my back to help a guy out that desires to better himself. But I have little to support those who wish to be support by the government.
So accidents are covered for immediate treatment.
That's good, but it's the long term health problems that are the concern. Many Americans (hundreds of thousands or more each year), even many with insurance, face bankruptcy because of medical costs. So immediate treatment may be available, but when the person needs further care and has no insurance or is cut off, as often happens, they may then lose their possesions, even their homes, as well as their health. Think of the further economic damage that does to the economy.
That's one huge advantage to socialized medicine, that sort of thing does not happen, and if it does, it is very, very rare.
Again the government does not have the responsiblity to insure I take care of myself - it is my responsibility to take care of myself. It has a responsiblity to insure the welfare of the people, providing emerancy treatment for those injuried does the exact same thing as the police and fire department does in your examble. In fact this emergency treatment is already law. So in this examble the United States is fulfilling your basic requirement as presented here.
The government should certainly not be cleaning the bottoms sides of the lazy, but caring for the welfare of the people, in my view, includes health care.
My basic requirement for health care is far more than immediate treatment; it's all treatment required.
So while you believe it applies to socialized medicine - I don't necessarily disagree - just that the government has a responsibility to have a workable plan before it attempts to change the current system. If you think Iraq is a mess - let the government attempt to change the medicial system without a thought out plan....
The plans already exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US the only G8 country without socialized medicine? One can hardly view the likes of the G8 members and say their economies lie in waste because of socialized health care. Use a pre-existing plan and shape it to better suit the needs of the US.
I trust them just as far as I trust the government to insure my personal wellbeing...which is not at all. I am the only person or enity that can insure my own well being.
Well said. But there are times when all of us, even you, dear sir, require a helping hand. I would rather that hand belong to my democraticaly elected government answerable to me than a corporation answerable to no one.
Now the young student working at Mcdee's would better suit your arguement. He can not often afford to have insurance while working that job, but he often does not see the need for it either.
Then consider the example used. As for his not needing health insurance... we won't know until it's too late, and that's simply not good enough.
Taking care of 300 million people where at least 40% are unfit will be a difficult mission for any government to assume with a viable plan, completely doomed to failure without one.
I absolutely, without a hint of doubt, know that the US can do it if it has the will to do it.
levels upon levels of buerarcy. Not much different then the insurance companies.
Completely different. All the levels are either elected representatives or are managed directly by elected representatives.
Had a good look at the American governments debt lately? Getting closer and closer to that possiblity. Well we could always nationalize our debt.
Your debt has a large part to do with an unjustifiable war. Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.
I just assume they are all crooks - and that I can make the best decisions concerning my personal wellbeing.
I'm right there with you.
Talking to a man with a rapid cycle bi-polar wife, a bi-polar sociopathic step-son - things often get beyond an individuals ability to cope - that is what family and community are for to support you in times of trouble. Why should I demand that the government assist or take care of personal issues? What benefit does the whole get out of fixing the individual? Making demands of the government to fix all your problems does not fix your problem. You have a personal and social responsiblity to take care of them yourself. Government handouts should always be the last resort to any personal problem. Again the system alreadly has laws and functions to insure that everyone gets the necessary treatment to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. So the system already provides for the general welfare of the people. To insure I get my shots and take care of myself -is still a personal responsibility not a government responsibility
The line between personal responsibility and needing outside help is real and has to be respected when crossed. If you are smart/lucky enough to be able to deal with your problems, excellent. But not everyone is. And the role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves and to assist its citizens when required.
They have been told - to bad they don't know how to listen.
Damint man, you're an American! Make them listen.
Nope our local frenchman who wants to be a Texan
We all want to be Texans.
To present yourself with honesty and intergity toward your fellow citizen. To provide what charity is needed to insure those in your community have the ability to achieve success if they chose to. To provide for the general welfare of the community by insure you keep the peace.
In other words Beriut I would give the shirt off my back to help a guy out that desires to better himself. But I have little to support those who wish to be support by the government.
I agree 100%. My only difference, I guess, would be my commie views on health care. I feel it is my duty, because it is within my power, to help the guy next to me have full access to health care without reservation. It's good for him, good for me, and good for the country if we're all, you know... feeling good. :sunny:
Reverend Joe
06-10-2008, 00:41
Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.
I hate to go off topic, but seriously, does ANYBODY know what "screw the pooch" means?! :stare:
It is derivative of "**** the dog," and it means to sit around and waste time.
That's it, I'm sick and tired of people misusing this phrase; I'm gonna post a thread bout this in the frontroom.
rory_20_uk
06-10-2008, 13:04
The thing that would most improve healthcare is:
Stop smoking
Moderate exercise
Moderate alcohol intake
Balanced diet
At a stroke rates of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, MIs, CVAs and COPD would decrease; secondary problems such as of osteoarthritis, amputation and general morbidity also fall, and a myriad of others.
Generally, people don't want to be healthy. They want to do sod all and for the health service to "solve" all the problems with tablets and proceedures, which are increasingly expensive. They know they don't have to look after themselves, and so don't. Similar case with invalid benefits: if the family had so support them they'd find a job to do if they were capable, as it is better to take the money.
As more things can be done, I do not feel that everyone should have an automatic right to it. In the UK we have NICE which basically places a definable value on human life with new treatments - and I think that it is right that this should be in place; other treatments should be privately funded. Everyone dies. But it is not worth £10,000 per person with a 6% chance for live a further year - both numbers to treat and cost to treat are not viable.
Where I think things become interesting is where the cost of not doing a proceedure will cost the country more than the one off cost of doing it, as the person will require masses of other treatments. Such is the case with fatties: they havn't got bad genes, or a metabolic problem. Almost anyone taking 10,000 calories will gain weight. BUT not treating them with a gastric bypass places a heavier cost on social interventions (full time carers, multiple hospital admissions, specialised bed etc etc).
~:smoking:
That's good, but it's the long term health problems that are the concern. Many Americans (hundreds of thousands or more each year), even many with insurance, face bankruptcy because of medical costs. So immediate treatment may be available, but when the person needs further care and has no insurance or is cut off, as often happens, they may then lose their possesions, even their homes, as well as their health. Think of the further economic damage that does to the economy.
Socialized medicine will not solve this issue. Medical costs alone do not cause bankruptcy - its the associated loss of income because the individual is hurt or focused on caring for the sick member of the family. Inother words this arguement does not meet all the requirements as the cause for filing bankruptcy. Then again if the insurance attempts to cut off on going treatment that was initially covered - the insurance company faces several legal issues for doing so. Insurance can only stop treatment if their is a cap on the coverage
That's one huge advantage to socialized medicine, that sort of thing does not happen, and if it does, it is very, very rare.
Again provide stats that demonstrated that when one losing there job because of medical reasons that socialize medicine prevents the individual from going bankrupt or suffering major finicial setback. This statement is to general when speaking of how medical issues effect one's income.
The government should certainly not be cleaning the bottoms sides of the lazy, but caring for the welfare of the people, in my view, includes health care.
I dont necessarily agree or disagree. Immediate health care for life and limb is alreadly established by law here. After that the current method is that the individual is responsible for their health.
My basic requirement for health care is far more than immediate treatment; it's all treatment required.
Basic health is a personal responsiblity. To attempt to claim that the government must provide services for a basic responsiblity of the individual does not sit well with me. If you only discussing the treatment that follows after the immediate treatment after an injury that threatens life or limb then I would agree, however your arguement has not been that.
The plans already exist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US the only G8 country without socialized medicine? One can hardly view the likes of the G8 members and say their economies lie in waste because of socialized health care. Use a pre-existing plan and shape it to better suit the needs of the US.
Name one plan that alreadly exists in the United States to change from for profit medicine to socialized medicine that goes beyond the surface political speech for general health care. I am not aware of any such plan. Using plans of other nations might be a good start - but no politician has broached that idea. Since I can only write the ineffective state senator and congresswomen of my district - and the other members of congress - it is ignored because the general voting population has not yet bought into socialized medicine.
Well said. But there are times when all of us, even you, dear sir, require a helping hand. I would rather that hand belong to my democraticaly elected government answerable to me than a corporation answerable to no one.
I rather the helping hand come from family and friends - personal problems are for personal fixes - not government involvement.
Then consider the example used. As for his not needing health insurance... we won't know until it's too late, and that's simply not good enough.
Read again - I said he often feels he does not need insurance - the young are often deluded about their mortality.
I absolutely, without a hint of doubt, know that the US can do it if it has the will to do it.
Here is the crux - not only does congress and the president have to develop a workable plan - they have to convince the voting public that it will benefit the nation. Again neither has been done.
Completely different. All the levels are either elected representatives or are managed directly by elected representatives.
Still a buerueracy is it not? I would image that if one delves into the fraud waste and abuse of the system one would find shocking data. We sort of had a discussion along these line a year or two ago, and it was easy for me to find. Since I am currently just arguing from my own personal opinion - I will only mention that any governmental program is prone to such problems and governmental buerueracies run by elected officials often are some of the worst.
Your debt has a large part to do with an unjustifiable war. Your leadership has already spent over a trillion-dollars screwing the pooch in Iraq. Imagine what could have been accomplished had that money been put towards the well being of the American public.
The current escalation of the debt is partly because of that. The large part of the debt comes from a failure over the last 40-50 years to balance the budget. Blaming the current conflict only address a small part of the issue. Now Imagine if the money was not spent and the budget was balanced the way the constitution spells out? So this arguement is counter productive because you are speaking of spending money that the government does not have - and either way the government would be incorrect in doing so.
The line between personal responsibility and needing outside help is real and has to be respected when crossed. If you are smart/lucky enough to be able to deal with your problems, excellent. But not everyone is. And the role of government is to help those who cannot help themselves and to assist its citizens when required.
Again there are programs alreadly establish just for this at the national level. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare programs, Unemployment insurance. At the state and local level there is also Food Stamp programs, welfare program, Medical care programs via county health clinics, and others.
So once again assistance is alreadly there. The problem is that many programs are not probably used by the citizens or they are to ashamed to use the program. If a person needs help - they have to just ask and it often can be accomplished.
I notice that in this discussion you often ignore the Medicare and Medicaid programs - which are programs geared to assist the elderly on fixed incomes and those in unforunate situations that need assistance. This is one of the major proplems I have with your position - you ignore the fact that the United States government currently has a system to provide medicial care to those in need. Is it because you don't understand these programs? Or is it that you ignore them because they do not meet your definition of socialized medicine? To claim that the American Government ignores those in need because of health issues - is only an emotional arguement when one begins to connect the dots about programs that alreadly exist. You might argue that the systems are not adequate, but claim that because a large percentage of american is uninsured requires a new socialized medicial program be established does not compute to me.
Now I think Medicare and Medicaid are both full of fraud, waste, and abuse because they are solely managed by the government and is used as a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to elderly americans requires them to be overhauled into better programs - but both are socialized medical programs, run like insurance companies by inebt government officials.
I agree 100%. My only difference, I guess, would be my commie views on health care. I feel it is my duty, because it is within my power, to help the guy next to me have full access to health care without reservation. It's good for him, good for me, and good for the country if we're all, you know... feeling good. :sunny:
The problem Beriut is that no system has full access to health care without reservation. Health care is like all other governmental programs - it has a finite source of supply. Every system has a cost regardless of how it is done.
Medical costs alone do not cause bankruptcy - its the associated loss of income because the individual is hurt or focused on caring for the sick member of the family. Inother words this arguement does not meet all the requirements as the cause for filing bankruptcy. Then again if the insurance attempts to cut off on going treatment that was initially covered - the insurance company faces several legal issues for doing so. Insurance can only stop treatment if their is a cap on the coverage.
If Joe Average gets hit with a massive health care bill, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm thinking his loss of income will simply be the icing on the cake of his financial destitution. The point is that no one should have to lose their home to pay for health care.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't roughly half of all American bankruptcies due to medical costs? And aren't the majority of those bankruptcies involving people who had medical insurance?
As for the insurance compnaies cutting people off, they do it pretty much at will from what I've seen. They have the money, the lawyers, and they are fighting back when healthy; the patient is fighting sick, often broke, and with the least costly legal backup.
Again provide stats that demonstrated that when one losing there job because of medical reasons that socialize medicine prevents the individual from going bankrupt or suffering major finicial setback. This statement is to general when speaking of how medical issues effect one's income.
What's too general about Joe Average getting hit with bills beyond his (and most normal people's) ability to pay? It's neither rocket surgery nor brain science to see that getting a monstrous health care bill is detrimental to one's economic well being. Socialized medicine does not hit the patient with any such bill.
I dont necessarily agree or disagree. Immediate health care for life and limb is alreadly established by law here. After that the current method is that the individual is responsible for their health.
I prefer the method where all health care required is mandated by law.
Basic health is a personal responsiblity. To attempt to claim that the government must provide services for a basic responsiblity of the individual does not sit well with me. If you only discussing the treatment that follows after the immediate treatment after an injury that threatens life or limb then I would agree, however your arguement has not been that.
My argument is simple; all medical costs to all patients should be covered by a government run socialized health care plan. Ba-da-bing!
Basic health care is a personal responsibility, no one denies that. But a girl I grew up with got meningitis in Grade 1 and required ten-years of horrendous treatments to cure her, I would have been hard pressed to hold either her or her parents responsible for her illness. As Forrest Gump said, "*** happens."
Name one plan that alreadly exists in the United States to change from for profit medicine to socialized medicine that goes beyond the surface political speech for general health care. I am not aware of any such plan. Using plans of other nations might be a good start - but no politician has broached that idea. Since I can only write the ineffective state senator and congresswomen of my district - and the other members of congress - it is ignored because the general voting population has not yet bought into socialized medicine.
I'm only saying what should and can be done. Don't blame me because your elected officials aren't doing it. Most industrialized nations have socialized health care. We demanded it and we got it. You're going to have to do it for yourself.
I rather the helping hand come from family and friends - personal problems are for personal fixes - not government involvement.
Sure, if you need help putting the BBQ together or are drunk and need to talk to someone, call uncle Fred. But unless Fred knows how to tie off an artery or diagnose a heart defect in a child, I'd prefer to keep him hands off the more serious stuff.
Read again - I said he often feels he does not need insurance - the young are often deluded about their mortality.
Aren't we all. But the point is still valid that young people with low paying jobs are probably very hard put to get insurance coverage that will cover all potential problems.
Here is the crux - not only does congress and the president have to develop a workable plan - they have to convince the voting public that it will benefit the nation. Again neither has been done.
But it should be done. If you guys can free the slaves, split the atom, put a man on the moon, and claim sole superpower status and leadership of the free world, then I'm sure you can manage to take care of your own people. Otherwise, what are you doing it all for? Pardon my ignorance and/or naive mental state, but isn't "America taking care of Americans" the whole raison d'etre of America?
Still a buerueracy is it not? I would image that if one delves into the fraud waste and abuse of the system one would find shocking data. We sort of had a discussion along these line a year or two ago, and it was easy for me to find. Since I am currently just arguing from my own personal opinion - I will only mention that any governmental program is prone to such problems and governmental buerueracies run by elected officials often are some of the worst.
Everything is a bureaucracy. You can't buy a chocolate bar without encountering some level of bureaucracy. Life without bureaucracy is life in a cave. And since nothing is perfect, and since bureaucracies are omnipresent in today's society, you're kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.
Governments and corporations are both guilty of waste and coruption. The difference is I have more control over my government than the corporations.
The current escalation of the debt is partly because of that. The large part of the debt comes from a failure over the last 40-50 years to balance the budget. Blaming the current conflict only address a small part of the issue. Now Imagine if the money was not spent and the budget was balanced the way the constitution spells out? So this arguement is counter productive because you are speaking of spending money that the government does not have - and either way the government would be incorrect in doing so.
Blaming the current conflict addresses a trillion dollars or more of the issue. And that trillion dollars+ does not take into account the damage done to the economy by having tens of thousands of wounded soldiers coming home who will require further, often life long, medical care, and who will no longer contribute to the economy of the country. It's a pooch screwing of Everest-ian proportions.
If Bush hadn't gone bonkers and ruined your economy, you would have the option taking on a reasonable deficit for a certain period of time, a financial shock absorber of sorts, to finance a socialized health care system and get it on its feet until the system and finances are worked out.
Again there are programs alreadly establish just for this at the national level. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare programs, Unemployment insurance. At the state and local level there is also Food Stamp programs, welfare program, Medical care programs via county health clinics, and others.
Not good enough. Not by a country mile. Especially not good enough in a country as prosperous as yours and one that espouses Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the basic tenets of it's social structure. And whose only reason, it appears, for not having socialized health care, is that it lacks the will to overcome the problems inherent in building and administering such a plan. It smacks of defeatism and I don't buy it for a microsecond.
So once again assistance is alreadly there. The problem is that many programs are not probably used by the citizens or they are to ashamed to use the program. If a person needs help - they have to just ask and it often can be accomplished.
The assistance that is there is too little. People are being cut off or denied out of hand.
I notice that in this discussion you often ignore the Medicare and Medicaid programs - which are programs geared to assist the elderly on fixed incomes and those in unforunate situations that need assistance. This is one of the major proplems I have with your position - you ignore the fact that the United States government currently has a system to provide medicial care to those in need. Is it because you don't understand these programs? Or is it that you ignore them because they do not meet your definition of socialized medicine? To claim that the American Government ignores those in need because of health issues - is only an emotional arguement when one begins to connect the dots about programs that alreadly exist. You might argue that the systems are not adequate, but claim that because a large percentage of american is uninsured requires a new socialized medicial program be established does not compute to me.
What I understand is that tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more are underinsured.
If millions of your own people are in dire need of life saving assistance and you do not think that is an adequate reason for the formulation of a national social plan to help them... what is?
Now I think Medicare and Medicaid are both full of fraud, waste, and abuse because they are solely managed by the government and is used as a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to elderly americans requires them to be overhauled into better programs - but both are socialized medical programs, run like insurance companies by inebt government officials.
As stated, I'll take the government I don't trust over the corporation I don't trust any day.
The problem Beriut is that no system has full access to health care without reservation. Health care is like all other governmental programs - it has a finite source of supply. Every system has a cost regardless of how it is done.
Of course. Every system has holes. Every system has waste. Every system has people fall through the cracks. But at least socialized health care has as a fundamental, legal, and inviolable social-contract tenet of its very existence that all people will be treated equally without any regard to their income or ability to pay.
My God, that sounds so American I might just bake an apple pie. :unitedstates:
If Joe Average gets hit with a massive health care bill, in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'm thinking his loss of income will simply be the icing on the cake of his financial destitution. The point is that no one should have to lose their home to pay for health care.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't roughly half of all American bankruptcies due to medical costs? And aren't the majority of those bankruptcies involving people who had medical insurance?
As for the insurance compnaies cutting people off, they do it pretty much at will from what I've seen. They have the money, the lawyers, and they are fighting back when healthy; the patient is fighting sick, often broke, and with the least costly legal backup.
Now I beleive you have fallen for incorrect stats - from personal experience the bankruptcies are due to loss of income due to medical conditions. Medical expenses also go into the picture but from what I have been able to determine it comes mostly from the loss of income coupled with the increased bills due to medicial conditions. So I on the surface people will think its medical bills - but they don't delve deeper into the fact that with severe medical condtions there is a subsequent loss of income. Then one must take a look at what debt to income ratio the individual had before the medical bills. Surveys can be very misleading in this regard because people often which to minimize their own failures and blame something else. I had to file bankruptcy when my wife attempted suicide, was in ICU for several days, and then treatment for several monthes afterwards. My debt to income ratio was high because of her conditions, some hidden by her, the hospital bills were just the icing on the cake, everything else was our own doing - so when she attempted suicide and was unemployed we had to file - but it wasn't the medicial bills that caused it - it was the loss of income.
When the court asks you the reason for declaring bankruptcy it only asks for one reason - people go for the one that places least blame on them. I told the court the truth - loss of her income and our debt to income ratio. Many people dont.
What's too general about Joe Average getting hit with bills beyond his (and most normal people's) ability to pay? It's neither rocket surgery nor brain science to see that getting a monstrous health care bill is detrimental to one's economic well being. Socialized medicine does not hit the patient with any such bill.
Because as stated before - Joe Average is not getting hit with bills beyond his or most normal people's ability to pay. Socialized medicine does not address the primary reason people go bankrupt either due to medicial reasons.
I prefer the method where all health care required is mandated by law.
Elective procedures included?
My argument is simple; all medical costs to all patients should be covered by a government run socialized health care plan. Ba-da-bing!
THat requires for the people of the United States to support it. No such support currently exists to vote in candidates that will inact such laws. Is it slowly coming about - yep. But even in today's candidates for president, its not in the top three concerns of the voters.
Basic health care is a personal responsibility, no one denies that. But a girl I grew up with got meningitis in Grade 1 and required ten-years of horrendous treatments to cure her, I would have been hard pressed to hold either her or her parents responsible for her illness. As Forrest Gump said, "*** happens."
Nice try but I did not say hold people responsible for illness - I said one's health. And again programs are available to help families cope and pay for the precedures to cure such illness in the United States, many from the government and even more from Charity organizations. Ever hear of St. Jude's Hospitial?
I'm only saying what should and can be done. Don't blame me because your elected officials aren't doing it. Most industrialized nations have socialized health care. We demanded it and we got it. You're going to have to do it for yourself.
LOL who's blaming an individual from Canada who can not vote in the United States. Again you argue from emotional appeal about an issue that concerns you - however you continue to miss the rebuttal arguement - its not a major concern to the Average American Voter yet. It gets surface treatment by major candidates - but its not even in the top three concerns for the candidates or the voters as of yet.
Sure, if you need help putting the BBQ together or are drunk and need to talk to someone, call uncle Fred. But unless Fred knows how to tie off an artery or diagnose a heart defect in a child, I'd prefer to keep him hands off the more serious stuff.
I trust doctors that I get to review and pick to take care of my family - not governmental lackie's who answer to a governmental buerarcy. I trust my family and friends to provide comfort and aid during times of stress and crisis. Seems you missed that point in your rebuttal. Shame on you for ingoring the emotional comfort that family provides in times of crisis, given that your arguement is primarily one of emotional appeal.
Aren't we all. But the point is still valid that young people with low paying jobs are probably very hard put to get insurance coverage that will cover all potential problems.
Again it is also often one of personal choice not to have insurance. I know of several less then 30 individuals that work for the railroad that do not have insurance - and you can not claim that they are underpaid.
But it should be done. If you guys can free the slaves, split the atom, put a man on the moon, and claim sole superpower status and leadership of the free world, then I'm sure you can manage to take care of your own people. Otherwise, what are you doing it all for? Pardon my ignorance and/or naive mental state, but isn't "America taking care of Americans" the whole raison d'etre of America?
Again ignoring the programs alreadly availiable with your arguement.
Everything is a bureaucracy. You can't buy a chocolate bar without encountering some level of bureaucracy. Life without bureaucracy is life in a cave. And since nothing is perfect, and since bureaucracies are omnipresent in today's society, you're kind of stuck between a rock and hard place.
Governments and corporations are both guilty of waste and coruption. The difference is I have more control over my government than the corporations.
Actually you have equal control over both - you vote the bum out of office, you don't spend your money on the corporate product to force him to concide to your demands. Both systems work - both take popular support of the people to pull off. Once again the issue of socialized medicine does not even rank in the top three here in the states. And even the candidate espousing governmental control speaks of an insurance plan controlled by the government.
Blaming the current conflict addresses a trillion dollars or more of the issue. And that trillion dollars+ does not take into account the damage done to the economy by having tens of thousands of wounded soldiers coming home who will require further, often life long, medical care, and who will no longer contribute to the economy of the country. It's a pooch screwing of Everest-ian proportions.
If Bush hadn't gone bonkers and ruined your economy, you would have the option taking on a reasonable deficit for a certain period of time, a financial shock absorber of sorts, to finance a socialized health care system and get it on its feet until the system and finances are worked out.
Blaming Bush is the easy way out. Economy is in shambles more because of our dependicy on oil and the subsequent oil commidity market spectulation.
Now I agree with you about the veterns - however thier are programs alreadly established for them to get treatment - the Vetern's hospitals and other such programs - more money has to be poured into them, they must be brought up to medicial par, and injured war veterns must be taken care of - the nation owes them that. The government has the obligation to insure that is done. But once again the institutions and programs are alreadly there.
Not good enough. Not by a country mile. Especially not good enough in a country as prosperous as yours and one that espouses Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the basic tenets of it's social structure. And whose only reason, it appears, for not having socialized health care, is that it lacks the will to overcome the problems inherent in building and administering such a plan. It smacks of defeatism and I don't buy it for a microsecond.
Again do you have any idea how much of the governmental budget goes to these programs? Frankly its a decent percentage of the budget. The problem once again is the big three issues of a buerarcy controled program - fraud, waste, and abuse.
Again I agree that a plan should be able to formulated to provide things - but again until it is developed going into a change without one is one that leads to diaster. And again the basic average joe citizen does not want to pay higher taxes, hince the idea of socialized medicine does not get much attention at the polls, nor does it gain enough popularity to win at the polls. I am against it because no one has really addressed the costs associated with it. Until that is address I am certain the average american is within the same viewpoint I am. One wants to prevent governmental fraud waste and abuse as best they can.
The assistance that is there is too little. People are being cut off or denied out of hand.
Again do you have any idea what the budget for those programs are?
http://www.care.org/graphics/getinvolved/advocacy/budget_piechart.gif
Medicare and Medicaid take just over 19% of the total budget. When one adds in Welfare, Food Stamps and other programs it gets closer to 25%, Social Security is 20% of the budget where people with disabilities are also provided income - not just the elderly. Defense budget is roughly 20% as a comparison. These are 2005 figures.
So Beruit a large budget is alreadly available and is being used. If the current programs are not working to your satification - those programs either need to be scraped and a new one instituted - which seems to be your primary arguement. However it is also the touching the third rail of American Politics - Medicare is seen by the over 60% as their baby - and its one of the most wasteful and fraud ridden programs - but the government can't touch it with a 10 foot pole because every office holder would be voted out of office.
I am all for scraping Medicare and Medicaid to come up with a better health care plan for the uninsured, underinsured, and the elderly. However the elderly won't let their little baby get touched, just like they wont let the necessary adjustment get made to Social Security. (Well congress is mostly to blame on social security since they continue to put their hands into that cookie jar.) But the voting public wont vote for the necessary changes to those two systems either.
What I understand is that tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more are underinsured.
If millions of your own people are in dire need of life saving assistance and you do not think that is an adequate reason for the formulation of a national social plan to help them... what is?
Life saving assistance can not be denied by law. Your arguement here is false.
As stated, I'll take the government I don't trust over the corporation I don't trust any day.
Hince the arguement the government must have a workable plan before I will support such a move with my vote.
Of course. Every system has holes. Every system has waste. Every system has people fall through the cracks. But at least socialized health care has as a fundamental, legal, and inviolable social-contract tenet of its very existence that all people will be treated equally without any regard to their income or ability to pay.
My God, that sounds so American I might just bake an apple pie. :unitedstates:
To bad the Canadian system does not even hold true to this standard. Why would I want it done half-assed in the United States? If we are going to do it - its got to be a tenable plan - not some knee-jerk reaction that costs more, fustrates the people more, and fails the people more then the current system.
Now I beleive you have fallen for incorrect stats - from personal experience the bankruptcies are due to loss of income due to medical conditions. Medical expenses also go into the picture but from what I have been able to determine it comes mostly from the loss of income coupled with the increased bills due to medicial conditions.
Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies—2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year (http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/2_2Himmelstein.html)
Medical Debt now the number one cause of bankruptcy in USA (http://philadelphiaathome.com/dct/54/id/8675/mid/2493/Medical-Debt-now-the-number-one-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-USA-.aspx)
How To Avoid the Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy By Getting Basic Health Insurance Coverage (http://www.moneybluebook.com/how-to-avoid-a-major-cause-of-bankruptcy-by-getting-basic-health-insurance-coverage/)
Medical Bills Major Cause of Bankruptcy (http://www.legalhelpers.com/bankruptcy-articles/medical-and-bankruptcy-article.html)
... and so on and so forth. Whether or not your experience carries more weight than the many studies that find that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy is debatable.
LittleGrizzly
06-11-2008, 16:19
I think its obvious that a family with no income coming in because of a recent sickness is going to go bankrupt whether the health care is free or not (assuming this as a fairly poor family) though they could keep going a bit longer in the system where health care is free.
But if we have a situation where a family has 2 earners and 1 falls ill then with a lot of cutbacks and maybe moving to a smaller house the situation could be handled but if the 1 earner has to support the family by himself and then on top of that cover the health costs of the ill one then that family is probably screwed because of the health costs...
Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies—2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year (http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/2_2Himmelstein.html)
Medical Debt now the number one cause of bankruptcy in USA (http://philadelphiaathome.com/dct/54/id/8675/mid/2493/Medical-Debt-now-the-number-one-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-USA-.aspx)
How To Avoid the Leading Cause Of Bankruptcy By Getting Basic Health Insurance Coverage (http://www.moneybluebook.com/how-to-avoid-a-major-cause-of-bankruptcy-by-getting-basic-health-insurance-coverage/)
Medical Bills Major Cause of Bankruptcy (http://www.legalhelpers.com/bankruptcy-articles/medical-and-bankruptcy-article.html)
... and so on and so forth. Whether or not your experience carries more weight than the many studies that find that medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy is debatable.
Did you bother to read your sources prior to posting Lemur or are you falling for the hype yourself. From the links in reserve order
While loss of work remains the number one cause of bankruptcy, "when people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance. The combination often creates a blow that families cannot recover from without bankruptcy." The groups most often affected by medical debt include seniors, women and families, according to the study. People hardest hit by medical debt often have some insurance, but not enough to cover all the costs of treatment.
So over half here would not be Medicial Bills being the cause of Bankruptcy.
Now the third link contradicts the fourth link and even itself.
This post is for people like me who used to live life without even the most basic of health insurance coverage. Did you know one of the major and perhaps number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is unanticipated medical bills caused by inadequate or even complete lack of health insurance coverage? Currently, unpaid medical bills due to unforeseen and catastrophic medical related ailments compete with debt mismanagement and credit card bills as the number one contributor to personal bankruptcy.
SO the author doesn't do his homework and uses emotional appeal in his initial post - number one cause is still loss of work. But then again he is trying to sell the importance of getting health insurance, so his information is distorted toward that point.
Your second link is geared toward much the same as your third link - geared toward selling a product or service.
And low and behold the first article actually agrees with me.
Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. Among those with private insurance, however, one-third had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy. Often illness led to job loss, and with it the loss of health insurance. Out-of-pocket medical costs (for co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services) averaged $13,460 for those with private insurance at the onset of their illness, vs. $10,893 for the uninsured. The highest costs -- averaging $18,005 -- were incurred by those who initially had private coverage but lost it in the course of their illness. Many families were bankrupted by medical expenses well below the catastrophic thresholds of high deductible plans that are increasingly popular with employers. The authors comment that even their own coverage from Harvard leaves them at risk for out-of-pocket costs above levels that often led to medical bankruptcy.
In many cases, high medical bills coincided with a loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to lose time from work.
High medical bills coincide with a loss of income - I weight the loss of income as being the primary cause the author seemly weighs the medical bill as being the cause, but even in the inital paragraph they weigh the loss of income as a primary factor. Sorry for being such a cynic but the loss of income is what prevents the individual from even attempting to pay the medicial bill.
Then in the following paragraphs the authors mention "The researchers found that illness and medical bills contributed to at least 46.2%, and as many as 54.5% of all bankruptcy filings." Contgributed means many things - but rarely does it mean the primary cause of bankruptcy. Again debt to income ratio's is what cause bankruptcy when one losses one's income. With medicial bills contributing to that overall picture
If your going to try debate me on the subject attempt to at least understand the arguement better, guess who particapated in a similiar study since my bankruptcy was in 2003 in Texas. If you lose your job - you can't pay your bills - regardless if that bill is your house or your medical bill.
Come on Lemur you can do better then this.
Now read this article from Canada about Bankruptcy - they limit the claim to un-insured individuals medical bills
http://www.bankruptcy-canada.ca/bankruptcy/causes-of-bankruptcy-in-canada.htm
Seems medical problems is the third numerous reason for bankruptcy in Canada. Based upon loss of income from medicial problem. Notice how that issue actually effects both nations.
Here is the abstract of the Harvard Study
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1
shows the proportion of debtors (N = 1,771) citing various medical contributors to their bankruptcy and the estimated number of debtors and dependents nationally affected by each cause. More than one-quarter cited illness or injury as a specific reason for bankruptcy; a similar number reported uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000. Some debtors cited more than one medical contributor. Nearly half (46.2 percent) (95 percent confidence interval = 43.5, 48.9) of debtors met at least one of our criteria for “major medical bankruptcy.” Slightly more than half (54.5 percent) (95 percent CI = 51.8, 57.2) met criteria for “any medical bankruptcy.”
More then one quarter cite illness or injury as the specific reason. What often happens when one is injured or ill? A simple question with a very simple answer.
Universial Health Care will not solve that problem at all.
If your going to try debate me on the subject attempt to at least understand the arguement better, guess who particapated in a similiar study since my bankruptcy was in 2003 in Texas. If you lose your job - you can't pay your bills - regardless if that bill is your house or your medical bill.
Come on Lemur you can do better then this.
I'm terribly sorry to disappoint, Redleg. You're not contesting that bankruptcy and medical emergencies go hand-in-hand, I get that. But you're saying, rather, that it's the lost income on top of the medical bills that cause the majority of the bankruptcies, rather than the huge medical bills all by their lonesome? A bit of a fine point, but I don't disagree in principle.
But then you seem to be saying that if those huge medical bills didn't exist, the link would be broken? That seems like an impossible position to prove ...
I'm terribly sorry to disappoint, Redleg. You're not contesting that bankruptcy and medical emergencies go hand-in-hand, I get that. But you're saying, rather, that it's the lost income on top of the medical bills that cause the majority of the bankruptcies, rather than the huge medical bills all by their lonesome? A bit of a fine point, but I don't disagree in principle.
But then you seem to be saying that if those huge medical bills didn't exist, the link would be broken? That seems like an impossible position to prove ...
Hince the mention of the Canadian study - the loss of income due to medicial issues is the third leading cause of bankruptcy in Canada.
So I am not saying that the link would be broken - Medical problems do indeed cause bankruptcy - its just not the bills that are the primary cause - its the loss of income that results from being treated or taking time off to treat the individual that is ill. Many studies from socialized medicine nations prove this point.
What I am saying is that the arguement about Medicial Bills being the cause of bankruptcy is not correct, its a contributing factor. The primary cause is loss of income from the illness or injury. That is my position.
rory_20_uk
06-11-2008, 21:05
Thread hijacked? Nah... :undecided:
~:smoking:
Nah no thread hijack - socialized medicine is just the easiest thing to talk about concerning American Socialism. I have also mentioned a few other plans that fit within that scope. Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and other service programs to include Social Security are basic social welfare programs that can be discussed when speaking of American Socialism. Two of the programs are basically insurance schemes to help out older individuals but were developed under a scheme to improve the social welfare of people.
Now go back to socialized medicine in the United States. Even Barrack Obama is not speaking of socialized medicine - he is speaking of reforming the current system and providing national health insurance.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
This goes to show while healthcare is becoming a bigger issue in the United States it still has not reached the stage where people are willing to embrace socialized medicine as the answer.
Frankly I see the benefits of socializing medicial treatment but there are too many drawbacks to unthought out implementation of any such program. Obama might have the best current solution to the problem but even then its not completely fleshed out.
Life saving assistance can not be denied by law. Your arguement here is false.
I've seen the film of the woman with her second round of brain cancer being told, by her doctor, that her insurance would not cover the operation(s) required to save her life. The doctor said, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do." So she cried and she went home. That was not an isolated incident.
So, I am inclined to quote one of our most respected debaters at the Org. and say, "Your argument here is false."
To use this as a point of comparison between for-profit health care and socialized health care; at least with socialized health care they'll try to save her life. Call the effort a commie dream, call it a bureaucratic conumdrum, call it an illogical appeal to emotionalism, call it anything you want, but it's what separates the good from the bad.
Your country and mine live by the laws set out in our Constitutions. Though ambiguous at times, those laws, for the most part, are absolutes. An innocent man goes to jail, for example. His Constitutional rights have been violated, but there you have it. Happens often. But at least the government and society say it's not supposed to happen. Therefore it is not the perfect implementation of law that sets us apart from the less democratic nations, but our mere adherence to the agreed principles of law. It's that we at least agree to try and to keep trying. And the ongoing adherence to the principles of law, the continuous effort, fosters a greater understanding of the law itself and how it relates to and works with society. There is no (can be no) perfection in the system - in any social system - other than in the effort to keep trying to make it better for the good of society.
It is exactly the same thing with socialized health care. We've only had it for about forty-years. It's a work in progress. It needs constant tuning. Hell, you've had your Constitution for two-hundred years, it's only four-pages long and you're still trying to figure it out. Yet you live and die by what it sets forth.
Now, you have repeated that no health care plan offered by the candidates is good enough. Fine. But if you grab the best of the plans, meaning the most socialized one, then you are at least on the right track. Just the same as when you vote for a candidate offering any of a myriad of goverment plans that will cover all aspects of American life. None are perfect, but step by step you build the system until it functions adequately, then, if you're lucky, properly, and then you keep working on it.
I've seen the film of the woman with her second round of brain cancer being told, by her doctor, that her insurance would not cover the operation(s) required to save her life. The doctor said, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do." So she cried and she went home. That was not an isolated incident.
So, I am inclined to quote one of our most respected debaters at the Org. and say, "Your argument here is false."
You are aware of the circumstance of that film, and why it was being used. But then again that was not the initial arguement I presented either. By law the hospital must provide medicial service to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. That does not make the arguement false if a provider elected not to abide the law, now does it?
To use this as a point of comparison between for-profit health care and socialized health care; at least with socialized health care they'll try to save her life. Call the effort a commie dream, call it a bureaucratic conumdrum, call it an illogical appeal to emotionalism, call it anything you want, but it's what separates the good from the bad.
Did she make any effort to get the treatment? Here is where the question becomes one of personal responsiblity. Was her condition treatable but service refused? Lots of bits of information missing from the film.
Your country and mine live by the laws set out in our Constitutions. Though ambiguous at times, those laws, for the most part, are absolutes. An innocent man goes to jail, for example. His Constitutional rights have been violated, but there you have it. Happens often. But at least the government and society say it's not supposed to happen. Therefore it is not the perfect implementation of law that sets us apart from the less democratic nations, but our mere adherence to the agreed principles of law. It's that we at least agree to try and to keep trying. And the ongoing adherence to the principles of law, the continuous effort, fosters a greater understanding of the law itself and how it relates to and works with society. There is no (can be no) perfection in the system - in any social system - other than in the effort to keep trying to make it better for the good of society.
Yep agreed -
It is exactly the same thing with socialized health care. We've only had it for about forty-years. It's a work in progress. It needs constant tuning. Hell, you've had your Constitution for two-hundred years, it's only four-pages long and you're still trying to figure it out. Yet you live and die by what it sets forth.
Unfortunately but socialized medicine guarntee your pevious paragraphs - because treatment is also refused in socialized medicine states - maybe not as much as in the United States from the insurance aspect but I can cite cases that demonstrate that socialize medicine also refuses to treat patients. Again you make an emotional appeal about socialized medicine as the best system but in your arguement you continue to ignore the established programs.
Now, you have repeated that no health care plan offered by the candidates is good enough. Fine. But if you grab the best of the plans, meaning the most socialized one, then you are at least on the right track. Just the same as when you vote for a candidate offering any of a myriad of goverment plans that will cover all aspects of American life. None are perfect, but step by step you build the system until it functions adequately, then, if you're lucky, properly, and then you keep working on it.
None of the plans offered by the candidates is one of socialized health care. Sorry there Beriut but the average voter in the United States does not have the vision of socialized medicine that you have. I dont vote for candidates that continue to spout spending money on social programs without sorting out the problems with the current programs. The best way to fix American Social Welfare programs is to take the ones we currently have and fix them by removing the fraud, waste, and abuse that government corruption and bueraracy has instilled into them. Did you know that Medicaid was established to address the un-insured in the United States, to provide them with the assistance that you desire for all Americans? And look at what it has become. Same with Medicare.
Third rail politics prevents politians from actually doing anything constructive.
You are aware of the circumstance of that film, and why it was being used.
It was a PBS documentary hosted by Walter Cronkite. (C'mon, I mean, Walter Cronkite.)
But then again that was not the initial arguement I presented either. By law the hospital must provide medicial service to protect life and limb regardless of the ability to pay. That does not make the arguement false if a provider elected not to abide the law, now does it?
Insurance compnaies cut off people all the time, and it is not always illegal. Not by a long shot. it's part of their standard operations.
Did she make any effort to get the treatment? Here is where the question becomes one of personal responsiblity. Was her condition treatable but service refused? Lots of bits of information missing from the film.
Personal responsibility? She was in her Round 2 of a brain tumour. Unless she slept with her head in a microwave I don't see how personal responsibility comes into play.
According to the documentary, her condition was treatable but the insurance company was still within its legal rights to say go home and die.
Unfortunately but socialized medicine guarntee your pevious paragraphs - because treatment is also refused in socialized medicine states - maybe not as much as in the United States from the insurance aspect but I can cite cases that demonstrate that socialize medicine also refuses to treat patients. Again you make an emotional appeal about socialized medicine as the best system but in your arguement you continue to ignore the established programs.
I have had a great deal of experience with our health care system. I know of no outright refusals of care. Both my parents had brain cancer, fatal in both cases, but they were cared for from the first day until the last day (about a year for my father and maybe nine months for my mother) and we were never asked for one red cent.
The established programs you mentioned, IMHO, are insufficient. And I will continue to say that social programs, especially ones of such import, require a human element in their structure and management.
None of the plans offered by the candidates is one of socialized health care. Sorry there Beriut but the average voter in the United States does not have the vision of socialized medicine that you have.
They will one sunny day. :sunny:
I dont vote for candidates that continue to spout spending money on social programs without sorting out the problems with the current programs.
Yeah, but if the program they have now is no good and they won't fix it, and you won't vote in a new program, that kind of puts you in the corner, doesn't it.
Third rail politics prevents politians from actually doing anything constructive.
Third rail politics are the only ones we like to discuss here. All else is shmoo.
It was a PBS documentary hosted by Walter Cronkite. (C'mon, I mean, Walter Cronkite.)
Oh since it was on PBS it must be completely truthful? Sorry for being so calous but I find that arguement just goofy.
Insurance compnaies cut off people all the time, and it is not always illegal. Not by a long shot. it's part of their standard operations.
Again I have read of similiar decisions being made by Socialized Medical programs. Do you wish me to cite them. Here is one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040146.ece
Personal responsibility? She was in her Round 2 of a brain tumour. Unless she slept with her head in a microwave I don't see how personal responsibility comes into play.
Personal responsibility for pursueing treatment that she believed was vital. Just going home to die because the insurance company said so - smacks of not taking any personal responsibility to get your health care. Again sounds calous but when an insurance company tells me no - I find out who is the next individual in the chain and so forth until I get an answer. If the answer is still no, I make the problem public and get public pressure applied to both the Insurance Company and the Hospital. So before complaining that the system failed - one should be able to understand the whole picture. This we don't know now do we?
According to the documentary, her condition was treatable but the insurance company was still within its legal rights to say go home and die.
Again what are all the circumstances around the condition and the denial of coverage. Again I can point out and cite articals that say the same about Socialized Medicine
I have had a great deal of experience with our health care system. I know of no outright refusals of care. Both my parents had brain cancer, fatal in both cases, but they were cared for from the first day until the last day (about a year for my father and maybe nine months for my mother) and we were never asked for one red cent.
Got a great deal of experience with the United States health care system - I have never been denied medical treatment regardless of my ability to pay. Even busted my shoulder once when I was a young man without Insurance - and guess what I still got treated and worked out a deal with the Hospital to pay 40% of the bill. Sorry Beruit for your loss.
The established programs you mentioned, IMHO, are insufficient. And I will continue to say that social programs, especially ones of such import, require a human element in their structure and management.
Did I say they didnt have a human element in their structure and management? One accepts that a bit of fraud, waste and abuse will happen given the human element - what one shouldn't accept is the levels in our current systems. As stated before a significant portion of the budget goes to these programs - a significant bit of data that you seem to ignore in your cruscade to convince Americans to adopt Socialized Medicine.
They will one sunny day. :sunny:
And when the American voters decide that is what they want - then the government will be forced to make the necessary changes - to include hopefully revamping the other social programs so that Socialized Medicine can be funded.
Yeah, but if the program they have now is no good and they won't fix it, and you won't vote in a new program, that kind of puts you in the corner, doesn't it.
The failure of politicians and the people to discuss and fix the third rail political issues is a major problem in the nation. I to hope someday Americans force the government to actually address issues versus the continued whitewashing of them.
Third rail politics are the only ones we like to discuss here. All else is shmoo.
But then we are not politicans.
Oh since it was on PBS it must be completely truthful? Sorry for being so calous but I find that arguement just goofy.
I never said that just because it was on PBS that it was truthful, but implying that just because it was on PBS that it wasn't, well, sorry to be goofy, but I find that argument callous. Besides, I'll trust PBS before I trust CBS or any of the other sitcom-news shows.
And since when did Walter Cronkite go from the most trusted man in America to a pinko lefty liar?
Again I have read of similiar decisions being made by Socialized Medical programs. Do you wish me to cite them. Here is one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040146.ece
I do not submit that socialized medicine is a perfect system, I only submit that it is more perfect than for-profit health care.
Personal responsibility for pursueing treatment that she believed was vital. Just going home to die because the insurance company said so - smacks of not taking any personal responsibility to get your health care. Again sounds calous but when an insurance company tells me no - I find out who is the next individual in the chain and so forth until I get an answer. If the answer is still no, I make the problem public and get public pressure applied to both the Insurance Company and the Hospital. So before complaining that the system failed - one should be able to understand the whole picture. This we don't know now do we?
A single woman, obviously with scant resources, looking like she was in her forties, going through her second bout of brain cancer with all its devastating physical and physchological side effects from chemo and stress et al, and she's supposed to go toe to toe in a cage match with ACME Uber-Insurance Inc. and their two-hundred lawyers? Are you kidding?
This woman was in desperate shape. She represented the most vulnerable of all people. This is the person who needs protection by the government and in her case, and many more like her, she's dealth a Joker by the system. And the big problem with for-profit medicine is that dealing jokers is legal and considered good business. What can I say but... Gah!
Got a great deal of experience with the United States health care system - I have never been denied medical treatment regardless of my ability to pay. Even busted my shoulder once when I was a young man without Insurance - and guess what I still got treated and worked out a deal with the Hospital to pay 40% of the bill. Sorry Beruit for your loss.
I'm glad you were fairly treated. My only wish is that everyone shares your good fortune.
And thank you for the kind thought. One of the things I appreciate about you is your ability to be a gentleman even when you're smacking someone around. :toff:
Did I say they didnt have a human element in their structure and management? One accepts that a bit of fraud, waste and abuse will happen given the human element - what one shouldn't accept is the levels in our current systems. As stated before a significant portion of the budget goes to these programs - a significant bit of data that you seem to ignore in your cruscade to convince Americans to adopt Socialized Medicine.
Indeed, but in all that there are still tens of millions left out in the un-insurable cold. It's simply not good enough. If you weren't able to improve matters, that would be one thing, but that is not the case at all.
And when the American voters decide that is what they want - then the government will be forced to make the necessary changes - to include hopefully revamping the other social programs so that Socialized Medicine can be funded.
I think the American public wants it, but there are very powerful forces who do not want them to want it and are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make sure they don't want to want it.
The failure of politicians and the people to discuss and fix the third rail political issues is a major problem in the nation. I to hope someday Americans force the government to actually address issues versus the continued whitewashing of them.
You boot, their behind. Works for me. :yes:
But then we are not politicans.
No, you and I work for a living.
But when I said third rail politics are all we discuss here, I meant Canadian politicians. Being a bunch of red commies, our politicians spend half their time howling at each other in Parliament about the same issues that Washington politicians wouldn't dare whisper in Congress of the Senate.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-12-2008, 03:28
But when I said third rail politics are all we discuss here, I meant Canadian politicians. Being a bunch of red commies, our politicians spend half their time howling at each other in Parliament about the same issues that Washington politicians wouldn't dare whisper in Congress of the Senate.
:yes:
CPAC is good television.
Ironside
06-12-2008, 10:15
As this have descended into a socialized healthcare thread, I did encounter some information yesterday that's interesting. It's unfortunatly on Swedish, but I could link to that one and the English sources if you want.
The US got the most private system in the western world, but it's the most expensive system to the GDP and have been so for at least the last 20 years (it also got the sharpest increase during those years) and to make matters worse, it's also amoung the worst.
So while you're in dire need of reforms, socialized healthcare does hardly by itself look like a more expensive system, rather the opposite.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-12-2008, 13:39
It really depends how efficient a health care system is.
Divinus Arma
06-13-2008, 03:27
:dizzy2:
Wow. I don't think anyone actually answered the original question. But I'm glad you have all had fun.
Devastatin Dave
06-13-2008, 03:38
And since when did Walter Cronkite go from the most trusted man in America to a pinko lefty liar?
1968
Good article about what doctors go through in our current system here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/health/views/17essa.html?ei=5087&em=&en=f8ba07f9bf7002d3&ex=1213934400&pagewanted=print). Hard to believe we can't improve on the current mess ...
Dr. Bhupinder Singh, 42, a general internist in New York, sold his practice and went to work part time at a hospital in Queens.
“I’d write a prescription,” he told me, “and then insurance companies would put restrictions on almost every medication. I’d get a call: ‘Drug not covered. Write a different prescription or get preauthorization.’ If I ordered an M.R.I., I’d have to explain to a clerk why I wanted to do the test. I felt handcuffed. It was a big, big headache.”
When he decided to work in a hospital, he figured that there would be more freedom to practice his specialty.
“But managed care is like a magnet attached to you,” he said.
He continues to be frustrated by payment denials. “Thirty percent of my hospital admissions are being denied. There’s a 45-day limit on the appeal. You don’t bill in time, you lose everything. You’re discussing this with a managed-care rep on the phone and you think: ‘You’re sitting there, I’m sitting here. How do you know anything about this patient?’ ”
Recently, he confessed, he has been thinking about quitting medicine altogether and opening a convenience store. “Ninety percent of doctors I know are fed up with medicine,” he said.
rory_20_uk
06-22-2008, 09:29
My personal choice is moving into Management Consultancy - where I am the solution to the myriad of problems and not shackled by morons who have no idea and who have bosses that are paid more than myself.
But good to hear that there's this farce in other countries too.
~:smoking:
Banquo's Ghost
06-22-2008, 10:07
My personal choice is moving into Management Consultancy - where I am the solution to the myriad of problems and not shackled by morons who have no idea and who have bosses that are paid more than myself.
You have a significant misunderstanding of Management Consultancy.
You aren't there to bring solutions - there's a very high chance you won't have a clue. What you are there to do is provide a fig leaf for the board when they make unpopular decisions.
Management consultant - a man who borrows your watch and then tells you the time. :wink:
rory_20_uk
06-22-2008, 12:52
Heh - I've heard that one. And the description of "hatchet men" or "yes men", and I'm sure all are true some of the time.
Of the "uses your watch to tell you the time" I'd all the caveat that the person with the watch is too stupid to use it!
There are at least some success stories about plans that have been implemented well. Either way, I'm earning £20 an hour generally, and I do nights and weekends, and have no perks. They can earn up to hundreds of pounds an hour, and get loads of perks and the occasional night and weekend. I'm prepared to be the board's stooge for that - I'm already a government / NHS stooge. At least there's honesty in the city - I'm expected to be a liar there.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.