Like SG, I don’t believe it’s fair to blame the docs - they can’t treat a patient they don’t see.

Plus, the docs have added the added complication of malpractice insurance.  The bulk of the problem lies in private insurance companies and hospitals who overcharge and nitpick who they’ll cover.

For every one person who would use their health care benefits responsibly and logically, you’d have twenty-five dumbasses clogging up doctor’s offices to schedule appointments for their ingrown hairs and headaches. 

That is true, but in countries with universal healthcare, like Canada, people are ranked for care according to seriousness of sickness--most of these people with small problems would leave before they ever got care because they would have to wait until everyone with real problems got care.  I know that Canada’s system has a lot of problems, but, afaik, those are due to the small pop density in many areas--not a problem for most of the US.

Prescriptions for medicine would be given out like highschool diplomas...Competition would be spurned among the medical field due to the fact that there is no longer any incentive to provide “quality care.�

There is no reason to assume that doctors would suddenly become blabbering idiots if healthcare were universal. Of course there are incentives--keeping their jobs! 

You are proposing giving the government the power to choose which medicines and treatments you can receieve and how often you can receive them. 

The govt already has quite a lot of control over what meds we can receive--through the FDA.  Not sure where you’re going with that.

The “rightâ€? to healthcare is no right at all.  It’s a privilege.

The right to life is parent to the right to medical care. Those words were written quite deliberately ambiguously so that we could determine what’s necessary to fulfill those rights.  Why not have universal healthcare?  It’s a good idea.  It’s nice. Rights are not a pre-set, unalterable list--we can choose what we want to be a right and I think universal healthcare is a good candidate.  That’s the beauty of our government (when it works properly...)

The only Americans who clamor for free health care are those unable to earn it themselves, and those who have been affected by the malady of those who were unable to afford it. 

That is most decidedly untrue.  I have never been without healthcare and I have supported universal healthcare for as long as I’ve known what it is.

“The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.—Leonard Peikoff�

That’s would be true if the system actually guaranteed you the chance to get a job.

I think the simplest and most efficient plan for health-care would be for the government to go into the insurance business.  Eliminate plans such as medicare, medicaid, the welfare health plan, etc…

That’s quite an interesting plan.  Maybe the best I’ve heard yet.

It is illogical and immoral to punish people for having more money than others, and yet you seem to have no qualms with the government taking $2,450 dollars from the richer man’s pocket for the same quality healthcare that another man is paying 2.4 times less for.

Illogical and immoral...but it’s okay to let people die for want of antibiotics?  It’s just money.  And not all that much, either.

Besides,

1) This is not Germany.

But we could say that a flat percentage rate for healthcare would have the same effect in the US--an overall change so that

Everybody was in the same boat, so the tax rate didn’t really affect my standard of living relative to everybody else.

As for rights:

If health care is a right that you want to see universalised for all, the reason for doing so is it is a civil right, and wealth is immaterial.  As such, it must be demanded in the U.S., and demanded that Ethiopia provide the same.  It must be viewed that it is equally unjust that doesn’t exist in either.  To do otherwise is to confound your logic. That logic demands universal world wide health care for all as a civil right. Yet, I don’t see that thinking carried forward.

I’m not sure where you’re going with that.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights cites healthcare as a human right:

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

So it’s already “demanded” in both countries, by our own Eleanor Roosevelt.  And, I would venture, by most of the people advocating universal healthcare here.  It doesn’t mean that it’s our responsability to provide that care to Ethiopia, at least, it’s not our problem until we have our own problems under control.  But that’s another discussion.  I’m not sure why you felt the need to bring Ethiopia up.

And whether his employer provides health insurance is an issue between he and his employer.  We each derive the benefits and drawbacks of our choices. 

But that sort of job is not always the job that employee would choose if s/he could…

In fact, I didn’t have healthcare until my late 20’s and the only time I ever saw a doctor was either for stitches or to have sea urchin spines removed.

You were lucky--you didn’t get pneumonia.  There are even other, simpler illnesses that can’t really be avoided--ex. something as simple and curable as a bladder infection, if left untreated, can balloon into a kidney infection and kill you.  If you don’t have insurance, you’re faced with ~$80 in charges.

The point is, at least the care is available.  Maybe not everyone will take advantage of it, but if it’s available, people who really need it can get it.  For me, the alternative would be heavily regulating private insurance companies to make them cover people who have serious, chronic diseases and forcing private hospitals and even doctors to cover people without insurance, and I don’t see that working better than universal healthcare would.

My phys anth professor’s wife has multiple sclerosis and can’t walk.  His insurance company refused to cover her once they found out and in spite of all the money he makes as a tenured professor, he can’t pay the bills.  No other insurance company will cover her.  Needless, to say, he is screwed and in a lot of emotional pain as his wife’s illness progresses.  There are countless cases like this. I would gladly give up a small portion of my pay to give them care--who knows when I might end up in such a situation?

Shelly,

Sorry if I gave that impression.  I did know that.

None of this really matters because we already have Medicare and Medicaid.  Anyone who doesn’t qualify for these programs can afford to get private health insurance.  Most will say that they can’t, but that’s only because they value their other luxeries more than their healthcare.

Sorry to double dip, but this appeared while I was posting...that is a gross misstatement and besides, these programs don’t cover much at all.
My grandfather relies on this program and half the time he can’t afford food because he has to pay so much out of pocket.  I dont even have time to get into the problems with prescription coverage.

My grandfather relies on this program and half the time he can’t afford food because he has to pay so much out of pocket.  I dont even have time to get into the problems with prescription coverage.

Then maybe he should go back to work since he apparently didn’t set aside enough for retirement.  Or you could just pay for it, after all you are advocating for the rest of us to do the same.  Why not just cut out the middleman?

CannibalCrowley said: “Then maybe he should go back to work since he apparently didn’t set aside enough for retirement.  Or you could just pay for it, after all you are advocating for the rest of us to do the same.  Why not just cut out the middleman?”

“Are there no prisons? Are there no poorhouses? They had better go there then!�

There are certain things society as a whole can do better than individuals on their own.  The spreading of unpredictable costs is one.  Some people go through old age without serious health problems, others do not. 

Apparently you are planning on being in excellent health in your old age.  Also you’re planning on the various private pension plans you pay into being there when you reach the age. Hope it all turns out that way.

Then maybe he should go back to work since he apparently didn’t set aside enough for retirement.  Or you could just pay for it, after all you are advocating for the rest of us to do the same.  Why not just cut out the middleman?

A.  He worked up until last year, when his health got so bad he couldn’t.  But when he was working, he worked as much as he could and still get benefits.  He is past retirement age and has one leg amputated below the knee.  He’s also a veteran.
Given the pittance he was paid in the military, the factory jobs he’s worked hard at all his life, and the fact he had 6 kids, I don’t think we could have expected him to save much for his retirement.  There’s also the fact that my grandmother died of brain cancer 11 years ago and he had to pay some out of pocket for that.  They took out life ins. on him because they thought he would die first and it’s what they could afford. 
Give the man a break.

B. We try to help him by bringing him food and offering money to pay for prescription drugs, but I’m saying none of this should be a problem in the first place.  Maybe my family can afford to help, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a family that cares and has money to spare.

Hey Consig - Ever worked 38 hours in a Quicky-mart? I dont think you have or you’d certainly consider it a high stress job!.Also..thanks for the dope propaganda.Pulling bongs DOESNT make you lose the ability to work.Did they tell you that in church?

Pulling bongs DOESNT make you lose the ability to work.Did they tell you that in church?

Frumpa, I was not clear.  Some professions require licenses before you may practice them.  Those licenses can be lost or suspended for engaging in such an activity that is illegal, even if only a minor infraction. That was my point.

Regards,

Good point - Sorry ‘bout that!

Les - I’m sorry. I don’t know what else to say.

The poor could do better if they weren’t lazy.
The wealthy should not have to pay more.
Healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege.

Someone mentioned bullshit. So I figured I would too. The three above are pretty good loads of it.

That the poor are lazy people just leeching off the government and its citizens is such an arrogant and judgmental claim, albeit a very convenient one. To believe that everyone has the same opportunities, that this is one big even-level playing field is naïve at best. There are plenty of poor and even middle-class people out there working their asses off every day who just cannot get ahead. There are also people out there budgeting their limited means for food, clothing, rent, and utilities, and not on “luxuries” as this claim would have you believe.

The wealthy should not have to contribute more? The hell they shouldn’t. Wealth is built on the backs of people whether those people are directly employed by those wealthy or not. It is called “giving back.” When we think we have no responsibility to our people, then we have taken individualism to a very unhealthy extreme. There is no need to deplete the wealthy of their resources, but there is a need to force them to step up and contribute a little more. Add that to all the dollars wasted by the government on luxurious offices, buildings, luncheons for crying out loud, etc. and the money for something better is there.

Healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. As is wealth. Unfortunately though, wealth is not something a person can acquire alone. See above.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of the Wealthy are that way because of their ancestors and not because of their own efforts.

Or because of sweatshops, a la the Waltons!

I started writing a comment about the difference here between conservatives and liberals, but it got more and more bloated, and threatened to expand to include evolution and social contracts, so I put it out of its misery.  Maybe later.

That said, what this comes down to is that the conservatives here, who presumably have nothing against everyone being as healthy as possible, nonetheless object to having to pay for someone else’s healthcare, because it’s “not my responsibilty”.  There is no logical argument against this position.  It does seem a bit uncharitable to me, but that’s just me.

The other objection proffered against healthcare is that it wouldn’t work. This argument is specious- it does work, after all, in Canada and Europe.  Of course it’s difficult to implement and subject to various kinds of abuse.  Even so, national healthcare is one reason I’m glad I live in Europe- it contributes greatly to the quality of life here for myself and everyone else.  Of course it comes at a price- higher taxes.  But I’m more than willing to balance my greed against the welfare of society a little further in favor of society here.

This leaves the conservatives in the position of saying they’d rather have more money than healthy fellow citizens.  That’s their privilege, of course.

I’m with Zilch. I agree that the peace of mind (both for myself and for others) is worth the extra cost.

As for rich/more hard-working people paying for other people’s expenses: I understand the argument, but don’t come to the same conclusions as some people here.

When you get really rich, people have an almost exponential growth in wealth (carefully managed, wealth begets more wealth). I’ll agree that wealth is NOT a zero-sum game where one person getting rich makes other people poor, BUT its not the opposite either. So wealth brings responsibility. And without all the frameworks a state provides, you likely would never have become rich in the first place (or would have had to spend a lot of time defending your wealth instead of enjoying or increasing it).

Also, I think its interesting that this topic is a lot more heated among the regulars than most other things we discuss here.

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of the Wealthy are that way because of their ancestors and not because of their own efforts.

So you’re of the mindset that they don’t deserve it and so we should be able to plunder their wealth and redistribute it to the more deserving?

But what if they do deserve it, what if they worked for it? How many wealthy people do you know personally? I know quite a few. I don’t know what you consider ‘wealthy’ but let’s just say over 10 million in net worth...of the four that I know quite well, they spent their childhoods picking cotton or otherwise working on farms/fields. The went to college, sacrificed much that other refuse to do, and made nice lives for themselves (in completely different industries...engineering, car dealerships, poultry plants, stocks, to name a few). And they should very well be able to leave that wealth for their families...the very people who they worked so hard to provide for, their motivating factors.

So, where do you make the distinction between those that ‘earned’ it and those that didn’t? I don’t think the government should be making value judgements on people’s wealth, redistributing it on condition of who ‘earned’ it. So then, should no one get to keep their wealth? What did these people work so hard for? If it was just going to be taken away from them, they might as well have just worked a mindless 8-5 job their whole lives and had a whole lot more free time, less headache, and less RISK...to arrive at about the same place (since the government wasn’t going to allow them to accumulate wealth while anyone anywhere was still in ‘need’).

I’m all for taking care of those (through taxes) who CANNOT provide for themselves. But there are plenty that can and for one reason or another choose not to… or did not or will not take advantage of the same opportunities presented to them. Rewarding poor choices is a very bad precedent.

I also know a few wealthy people who got that way by hard work.  But it is specious to force the distinction between letting them keep their wealth or not.  We do tax people to pay for the benefits of a stable society that enables the accumulation of wealth.  Furthermore, uninsured (and often unnecessary) health emergencies drive up everyone’s cost of health care, rich and poor alike. 

I don’t think the issue or intent is to redistribute wealth, but to charge them for benefits received.  Their low-wage workers who show up and do the job need medical care and seeing to it helps everyone.

Then there are the elderly who contributed to society in hundreds of ways over their long lives.  Their kids are busy contributing to society and could only see to their parents’ health concerns by pushing themselves further into poverty, with attendent costs, again, to everyone.

Universal health care benefits everyone, not just the poor but also the middle class and the wealthy.  It need not mean stripping anyone of their wealth.  Also the wealthy will always have access to extremely advanced, expensive health care that the poor will not be able to access.  Some kind of cost-benefit analysis is always applied to public spending (or should be.)

zilch:

This leaves the conservatives in the position of saying they’d rather have more money than healthy fellow citizens.

In a nutshell, there you have it.

My gut feeling is that we may end up as neighbors in a few years, once our obligations to family are fulfilled.

So you’re of the mindset that they don’t deserve it and so we should be able to plunder their wealth and redistribute it to the more deserving?

You weren’t adressing me, but I’ll answer too, since I have similar views.

First off, I’ll state that yes, I favor redistributing wealth.

Why? Because wealth has GRAVITY. Once you get it, by whatever means (inheritance, hard work, luck) you are not only set to make more money per buck than people with less money, you are also in control of the most powerful lever to make sure that it stays that way.

I am not arguing for confiscatory taxes. But taxes should be progressive (not necessaryly steeply so) because I do believe that as you rise higher on the wealth or income scale, the rate of increase rises steeper too.

Does a supermodel really work harder than your supermarket clerk? What does she bring to it except the luck of inherited beauty?

What does a stock broker do to merit millions a year? He’s providing a function that’s valuable? Accepted (even though I COULD debate that point) but he rarely if ever speculates with his own money. So he actually earns money while others take part of the risk (the shareholders and employes of the companies he trades).

I find that many of the best-paying jobs actually work that way - you get a big share of the money if it goes well, the people you employ under you take a big share of the risk (and when did their wages ever rise as fast as the earnings of the management?).

As for inherited wealth - well, the gravity argument again. Do we want to redistribute enough of that wealth to ensure that each generation (no matter their parents failings) has a reasonably even starting field?

Sorry to hear about your loss, Les.

Another Canadian here wading into this issue. The area of Canada where I live is remote (northern) and the regional government uses a tax on alcohol to subsidize our health care, no fees for me or the company. So, when people here say drink to your health, it is literally true.
Also, due to rising health care costs, they have implemented strategies like tele-health to filter out the emergencies. The tele-health line is staffed by RNs who basically “flowchart” your medical concerns and use the information to provide a diagnosis of whether or not medical attention is required. I have used this service a couple of times and found it quite helpful. Ultimately, however, the decision is up to the individual to decide if a hospital/walk-in clinic visit is required. 
The trick with health care, IMO, is to find a national system which looks after the well being of the populace, especially the younger citizens who, through no fault of their own, may require medical attention. There are ways to cut the costs and “hide” (booze/cigarette tax) the fees.

Part of the problem is interposing several layers of bureaucrat paper-pushers between patients and their doctors. Giant Corporations calculate profit and loss on operations and illnesses and unilaterally declare some as unoperable, not optional, or unnecessary. Salesmen behind a desk, with no medical training, force decisions down people’s throats. The issue is not health at all, but money. Right this moment we are going to spend millions on an inauguration....millions that could be used to save lives instead of saving an ass from starting a war by lies.

Peter’s hit it. What price shall we put on human life? Sometimes less than the worth we place on a pound of cow.

I say we approach it as prickly pear demonstrated but start by taxing the churches. Make them put their monies where their mouths are.

Les, I am so very very sorry. What a terrible tragedy to have happened to your family.
I am posting a link to this now.

So you’re of the mindset that they don’t deserve it and so we should be able to plunder their wealth and redistribute it to the more deserving?

Wow brandi, dont put words in my mouth.  I was merely pointing out the inherent inequity of the system, and trying to negate the earlier idea that everyone who is rich earned it by their own efforts.