US health care Mentality

[Seldon2639]

Call us selfish, call us greedy, but don't paint it as uninformed blathering.

Isn't helping your countrymen part of being patriotic? Solidarity and such?
I'm not in favor of NHS because I couldn't afford private insurance (in fact, I am privately insured), I'm in favor because everybody should have cancer screenings, heart-operations and other essentials.

It is, and I'm in favor of universal healthcare as well. I didn't intend to imply otherwise in my post. I'm also privately insured (though I've yet to have to put my current insurance to the test, thankfully), and I support greater access. Of course, I do it for selfish reasons (public health is better in the long run for me, 'cause if you get the plague, I want you getting treated, not giving it to me), but I digress.

My point was that this is a discussion, and a reasonable one. We can debate (without having to throw out slurs and derogatory statements) whether it's best for the country to have greater access, or greater quality for those with access. I was only trying to say that we shouldn't be dismissing those who aren't in favor of universal healthcare as being ill-informed or sinister or stupid

 

[boholikeu]

Call us selfish, call us greedy, but don't paint it as uninformed blathering. There's a legitimate reason to be against "universal access", especially if you're part of the group that already has access.

Fair enough, you are all greedy and selfish =)

I for one am happy to be living in a country that completely covers my pre-existing condition even though I am not a citizen (I'm American living abroad). As much as I'd like to move back closer to my family in the US, things like this and the current state of the economy over there make me happy that I don't have to deal with American politics anymore.

 

[Seldon2639]

Call us selfish, call us greedy, but don't paint it as uninformed blathering. There's a legitimate reason to be against "universal access", especially if you're part of the group that already has access.

Fair enough, you are all greedy and selfish =)

I for one am happy to be living in a country that completely covers my pre-existing condition even though I am not a citizen (I'm American living abroad). As much as I'd like to move back closer to my family in the US, things like this and the current state of the economy over there make me happy that I don't have to deal with American politics anymore.

Well, any good pundit would have to point out two things at this point:

First: that the major healthcare innovations are coming (and have been coming for a while) out of American research and development, mostly because we allow the medical research companies to charge realistic rates. So, the higher cost we bear actually pays for the kinds of drugs and technology you take for granted.

Second: on a similar note, many European countries (and Canada) can artificially lower prices through controlling the price at which pharmaceuticals can be sold. Again, that's only viable if someone else is actually paying a premium (overpaying) to make up the difference for the business.

You're welcome .

As I pointed out in my most recent post, I actually agree with universal healthcare, I just want it to be noted that the people who disagree with that mindset aren't automatically craven and stupid.

 

[boholikeu]

Well, any good pundit would have to point out two things at this point:

First: that the major healthcare innovations are coming (and have been coming for a while) out of American research and development, mostly because we allow the medical research companies to charge realistic rates. So, the higher cost we bear actually pays for the kinds of drugs and technology you take for granted.

Second: on a similar note, many European countries (and Canada) can artificially lower prices through controlling the price at which pharmaceuticals can be sold. Again, that's only viable if someone else is actually paying a premium (overpaying) to make up the difference for the business.

You're welcome .

Oh I totally realize this. I never said I wasn't greedy and selfish, too. =)

I have to say though that this practice has always confused me. Why aren't the same people that are against universal healthcare in America against exporting our drugs/tech at reduced prices for other countries? It's okay to subsidize health care for the rest of the world, but people aren't willing to help pay for fellow Americans? Huh? Since when did the right become so altruistic towards the other countries?

As I pointed out in my most recent post, I actually agree with universal healthcare, I just want it to be noted that the people who disagree with that mindset aren't automatically craven and stupid.

I had a feeling you did. I just wanted have a good jumping point to enter in to the conversation with. =)

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I'm a Canadian. And I know at least where I am if you make more than $30,000/year you hafta pay a fee to keep your health care, so it's not entirely free... but it's like $500/year at that level... and seriously, I've seen a doctor once in the last like... 10 years... been in the hospital 3 times in my life... and rarely take advantage of the healthcare offered... but if I lived in the US I'd still be in debt trying to work out of it due to what i had to have done in comparison to my family being poor.

we have busted ass nothing. but at least we don't hafta worry about being tens of thousands in debt for something that needs to be done or might cripple/kill you without...

and as far as competition goes. why? why bother? I mean sure the guise of freedom and I saw someone mention serfdom... well guess what! We're ALL slaves to the system at some level. unless you personally run things at the top of a huge multinational corporation you are enslaved to the currency based commercial consumerism driven society that everyone else is. you'll never achieve anything noteworthy, because someone higher up will take credit. just face it, having free health care, or having government controlled cheap health care, makes you no more of a slave than you are now rest assured that you will serve the machine till you die. and you will not be missed .

in this case isn't it better to have one less financial stress factor in your life? so you can live a happier existence even though you may never escape the all encompassing enslavement of your person by those on the top?

I don't see why anyone would want to pay that much when they could get the same thing for less... I mean in these times there's enough financial worry. isn't there?

/end rant

 

[Necrofudge]

The grand scheme of the conservatives has come around to spit on his ideas probably because they're awful sore that their little gremlin of a candidate didn't win.

 

[Skeleon]

Don't talk about McCain that way...

I actually agree with you there.
McCain is one of the more moderate Republicans and actually opposed to torture and some of the other extreme right-wing stuff and his party is smearing him and his daughter for it.
But I doubt he would've stood strong against the pressure of the right-wingers if he had been elected for president, so that counts for nothing, unfortunately.

 

[Seldon2639]

~snip

I'm not sure, truth be told. I think it's less "we're okay with it" and more "we can't do anything about it". The companies themselves are allowed to charge to Canadian pharmacies whatever they can get from them, and to interfere with that would be the same kind of price setting that we tend not to do

 

[Anacortian]

This. I don't want to be dependent on the government, in any way, shape, or form.

It pains me to use this argument twice, but it got flatly ignored last time, so here goes.

You'd turn away police help then?

This. I don't want to be dependent on the government, in any way, shape, or form.

Thats nice dear, but some people don't have that luxury.

I would point out that this thread was started to ask why those like me resist a particular form of government interference. I expanded the topic to all forms of government interference. I do not believe this thread was meant as a place to debate the merits but to understand the statement. That being said, let me further explain.

Historically America was founded as a republic. This is best defined as government being res publica (a thing of the people). America was not a democracy (rule of the people). The framers of the US Constitution (though not all of them) feared mob rule. Hence US were begun with written laws to insure that the mob would not rule because government would not rule. As government becomes more local, power increases. Each state was to be sovereign (though the conquest of the Confederacy put an end to that). Each municipality was to exercise more detailed control than the state. Why? It is easier for one to affect more local government, so it is harder for more local government to abuse that authority.

Police? Police have, until the FBI, been a strictly local affair. Police departments were run by municipalities. Municipal police are still on a very short leash in more of the US. State police were employed to keep order in areas that could not support their own police. In these cases, police were hired as a res publica (thing of the people) to insure order. What scant federal police there were were in charge of lands not within a state, enforcing duties, and conducting the accused from one state to another.

But it was asked, "would I turn away police help?" That depends. Do I have a need for those hired by my city and myself as guards of public order? If so, I would welcome them. If not, I would tell them to shove-off. The police are not an arm of my patron; they are my employees as long as they wear that badge. They are a thing of the people.

To the second quote, freedom is not a luxury. Man is intrinsically free. If one has a material need that one cannot fill, it is the duty of charity of his fellow man to help fill it. If you are a serf, it is the duty of your lord. In the case of such a plebeian , I agree with such handouts. If the government is a republic, I do not. I would not compel another at the barrel of a gun to pay for my medical bills. If the government is a republic, that is exactly what state sponsored medicine is. A freeman's body is his own; a serf's body is the responsibility of others.

A duty of charity is not the same thing as a duty of a lord. The duty of a lord is established my a contract of sorts between the serfs and their better. A duty of charity is a moral but not a civil duty. If law (in this case tax law) compel me to fill such a duty, it ceases in that instant to be a duty of charity.

Is heath care owed to a freeman? No. Man does not reach majority with a right to health care. A child is owed such by his parents, but his adulthood typically strips his parents of such obligation. If you feel you are owed health care by your government, you are a plebeian at best.

----------

I know that the US are not as they once were and not as I would like them to be, but I can only defend that with which I agree. I would see a day when the trappings of mob rule were thrown off on one end and, on the other, I would not have to wonder if the United States should be called the United Provinces.

 

[Skeleon]

A duty of charity...

I'm surprised. How can there be a duty of charity?
Also, this basically sounds like "let's not regulate and hope people do the right thing and support those in need" which anybody should know they won't, at least not on such a grand scale as would be necessary for such a charity-system to work properly.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Believe it or not Americans, your goverment cares about you more than Corporations X, Y and Z

 

[devoidx]

we can let the insurance companies compete with each other... they already can, they just choose not too. they work together to decrease costs and increase premiums across the board. Letting the government take over healthcare may not be the best option, regulating the existing system would be much better. Guaranteed acceptance, with a cap on deductible, and premiums would be a good start.

Complete deregulation, and free market system would lead to a melt down. Bank bailout would be nothing compared to med bailout. Oh noes they gonna add a health care tax on us ! damn socialists! /shrug guess we'll just add med bailout tax then, maybe we can start another war somewhere. Need more of those, they are fun. Spin the globe and throw darts till it hits land. We can always make up an excuse why we need to invade/rebuild a country.

 

[Anacortian]

A duty of charity...

I'm surprised. How can there be a duty of charity?
Also, this basically sounds like "let's not regulate and hope people do the right thing and support those in need" which anybody should know they won't, at least not on such a grand scale as would be necessary for such a charity-system to work properly.

I admit "duty to charity" is a little oxymoronic. The point is that the duty is not civil, but moral. It is better for a man to help is fellow man. Socrates would call it a duty to himself. Aquinas would call it a Christian duty. Both would agree that such an action should not be compelled by civil means. Theft is theft, even if you need what you stole.

You are not seeing my approach to the topic, so I will be bold: A free adult does not have an right to health care. Man lacks an intrinsic right to health care. I am not proposing a "plan" whereby we rely on charity; I am opposed to all but negative steps when we are talking about government and health care. I do not want a federal medical system, of any kind, at all. I am not proposing a new system; I am opposing all systems. Nothing need be in its place.

Something may be said about treatment (for immediate injury or sickness), but not care (extended and not immediately needed). The US do pretty well at treatment in their ERs. I am willing, as a voter, to back treatment with public moneys; not care. This would be an issue for state and/or local government.

What would I like to see the federal government do? I would like a bill that came into effect one year after its passing (to let everybody prepare). Upon effect, all federal laws concerning medicine (entitlement, drugs, medical insurance, everything) would be repealed. The only laws put in its place would be those needed under the full-faith-and-credit clause concerning medical insurance and other issues as they cross state boundaries. I would also make punitive damages awarded in federal court go into federal coffers as a fine, not to plaintiffs as a reward (that would lower insurance prices.) The FDA become part of Standards and Measures with the job of only enforcing proper labeling of food and drugs and to caution but not to ban. Needless to say, the ATF would be disbanded. Each state would be able pass whatever laws they saw fit in the new legal void; I would advocate very few. I won't care if the new federal system ends up not working properly because there will be no federal system; let each state figure it out (the good ideas are bound to present themselves in execution.) This way governmental influence on medicine will much more a thing of the people.

After we take down federal interference in medicine.... we can start on education... but that is too far from the subject of this thread.

 

[Mysterious Stranger]

I love the idea, and know many other Americans who do. However, as has been said before, some people still believe that anything remotely socialist must be inherently evil.

 

[ottenni]

I live in Alabama as of now and the general belief is that if you had a health care system like the one in Canada you would have to wait to long to get whatever you needed to treated so old people and other sickly folk will die. Some of the peoples opinions here range from America becoming comunist to Obama making his own world order and army using minorities.
Oh and Obama is racist against whites. Not my personal opinion but what I've heard.

Yes, because that is obviously it, there is not a single old person here in Canada because they die before they get the care they need, we live in a perfect society of young people..how did I not see that.. >_>..

Its not that bad here, yes there are waiting times, but nothing longer than from 5-30 mins, and if it is something fatal or something like that, you are given top priority

Chill prick, I never said it was my belief. Maybe I should have been more clear about that or you could chill with the assumptions. Oh wait I was clear on that I said "Not my personal opinion but what I've heard" So what the fuck is your deal?

Ok settle down people. He wasn't directing anything at you, and yes you were specific that it wasn't your beliefs so you don't need to get so fired up. Theres nothing here to fight over.

Back on topic. I live in Australia and we have public health care, and i don't know how similar it would be but my single mother of three can afford it so ours works just fine.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Can we stop already with this? At least contribute to one of the many open threads or something if you have an opinion. This is getting disgusting.

I live in Massachusetts, where Obama's good buddy Deval Patrick is Governor, and we have what is described as "near-universal" health care. What it really is, is everybody must have insurance, or you will be taxed at the end of the year. My wife and I combined make about 75,000 a year, which is not bad, but here's the deal. We do not qualify for free care, and have two children plus ourselves to insure. The cheapest plan the state offers us is 650 dollars a month. This is almost as much as our rent. Last year, she went jobless for a while, and we couldn't afford the health care for a while, and couldn't get free care because we made too much last year. Even though it was only 6 months, we were faced with a tax penalty at the end of the year.

Why would you punish people with a fine for not having insurance when they can't afford to pay for the insurance? It's squeezing water from a stone.

The way things have worked in MA is they haven't worked at all. All health care is still expensive, and it has done nothing to lower costs, instead they have put even more things in place to screw the middle class, while the super poor and super rich get the best care around.

Here's an article to show you how universal health care is working out on a small scale:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/

That is both a) not how it works in countries that do it already and b) (to the best of my knowledge) not how Obama plans on doing it. The whole deal with the free health care is that it is free. Sure, your taxes go up a little bit (poor thing) but no one will ever need to buy health insurance again.