Page 3 of 4 First 123 4 Last

It is very true unless you don't like shades of grey.


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.
I 100% agree. However, the proper steps must be taken for this to happen.

Never disputed this.

Reply

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.

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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'.

Reply

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.

Reply

Look at this. I was just on The Astronomy Picture of the Day and look what it is:



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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

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.

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

Then we have our civilised socialists in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4087576.ece

To allow people to die in a western democracy to fulfill a political ideology is spiteful, hateful and vindictive.

Reply

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.

Reply

....and with the government system, you have the threat of voting for the other guys.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

Yes it is. It describes the reality in the USA rather well I think.

Like I said, one task doesn't have any of the same problems associated with it that the other does.

Reply

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.

Reply

The two are hardly comparable, Horetore, and we both know that.

Reply

There the same guys......

Reply

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.

Reply

Sweet.

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.

Reply

By and large it ain't.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

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....

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Indeed, you are probably correct.

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.)


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.

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.

You called me dear. I knew you had squishy Canadian blood in you.

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.

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.

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.

Get better candidates.

Reply

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.

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...

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.

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.

American Mutt all the way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will probably vote for Louis this year - he is probably a better candidate then any we got running now.

Reply

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

We make good dogs.

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.

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.

It's a huge deal, no doubt. But one worth doing.

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.

Then tell them to.

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?

Reply

Page 3 of 4 First 123 4 Last