The Socialist Nightmare

[TallGuyLittleCar]

(Remember those unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? If healthcare doesn't qualify as "Life" then those words may as well mean less than nothing.)

natural or legal rights? The declaration of independence has no legal standing. As far as natural.. the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on ""no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." If i am forced at gun point to pay for your health care.. is not my life, health, liberty and possessions not being harmed?

I say at gun point because treasury officers due carry guns.

Other countries with national health care spend much less and cover everyone.
We spend much more in our privatized system and only cover a percentage of the population.

what are the other nations contributions to global medical research? Who are other nations lifestyles more or less healthy than ours.

The big insurance and drug companies control the message and the government.

i agree.

Obama is finding that out the hard way.

You may want to follow the money.. much of it has at times lead to Obama. Obama is in terms of politics perhaps one of our smartest presidents. I really doubt anything concerning politics will surprise him.

[Loyal Rogue]

If i am forced at gun point to pay for your health care.. is not my life, health, liberty and possessions not being harmed?

I will say, No.
It's not one-sided.
Would you not be enjoying the same benefits and coverage as well?

There really is no difference in the "paying for someone else's healthcare" premise between national insurance or a private insurance.
In both plans everyone pays a premium to cover any claims made by others in the plan.

The real difference comes down to the primary goal of each.
The goal of national insurance is to provide medical care (bonuses are given for curing and preventing illness, stopping patient smoking, lowering obesity, lower cholesterol, etc.) as opposed to the goal of private insurance which is to make profit (bonuses are given for delaying claims, denying claims, finding preexisting conditions or other reasons to cancel policies before payment, and successfully defending against claims in court to avoid "medical losses" that affect stockholders shares.)

The real healthcare horror stories in this country are not from those who have no health insurance, we already know they're screwed. No, the real horror stories are from those who thought they had good insurance until they tried to file a claim and found out firsthand about the three D's that every for profit insurance company lives by, Delay, Deny, Defend.

There was quite an eye-opening interview on Bill Moyers of a former health insurance exec, Wendell Potter, that really exposes the dark, slimy underbelly of the insurance industry that you won't see in the corporate-owned mainstream media.
I highly recommend watching it for anyone interested in our current healthcare system.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

The full transcript is also posted there if you would rather read it instead of watch.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

I will say, No.
It's not one-sided.
Would you not be enjoying the same benefits and coverage as well?

There really is no difference in the "paying for someone else's healthcare" premise between national insurance or a private insurance.
In both plans everyone pays a premium to cover any claims made by others in the plan.

Let me say that I'm arguing this on the bases of "rights" because i'm a libertarian goofball, not necessarily what is best for the nation.

In private health insurance i have the option to pay or not to pay. I am not forced to pay for health insurance. In national health insurance the only way not to pay is not to pay my taxes. Which at the very least will have my bank accounts drained and my wages garnished and at the very worst will have me shot by a treasury agent.

[Loyal Rogue]

Fair enough.

Personally I would like to opt out of paying taxes for illegitimate wars I don't agree with, government subsidies for corporations making record profits, and Bush/Cheney's healthcare and secret service details, just to start MY list.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

So if we all pay for each others healthcare you'll be cool with the wars, subsidies etc?

[Loyal Rogue]

No, but I'll still continue to pay for them.

[gerbick]

So when you say "if I'm forced to pay for your healthcare", how do you feel about Medicare and Medicaid... Social Security even?

Should they all be restructured, destroyed? Is there a shift back to putting money in the stock market or something?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

So when you say "if I'm forced to pay for your healthcare", how do you feel about Medicare and Medicaid... Social Security even?

Should they all be restructured, destroyed? Is there a shift back to putting money in the stock market or something?

From a purely ideological libertarian standpoint they should be destroyed.

However in the real world of judeo/christian/muslim morality they must be in place. Whatever feelings on personal responsbility one has, very very few are willing to turn their backs on a young mother and child in the street that does not have healthcare. Even of those born into means I have personally seen some miss manage their lives to be left with nothing. Sometimes irresponsibility so great I have to wonder if it was deliberate.

[gerbick]

So... that would be a yes?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

reluctantly.

I do believe it would serve the united states well to discuss the details without the two sides calling each other names, for the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm quite fearful this will not really fix the problem but only offer a program in which a few private insurance companies will take over the "public option". Those congressmen in the know will be buying stocks in those insurance companies before the ink is dry.

I don't think it will do anything to bring down health costs and ultimately be fatal to the united states, much like social security.

[gerbick]

I wonder if anybody here would change their tune(s) once they find themselves unable to comfortably afford their current lifestyle or when they're a tad bit older.

Me... I'm looking to go overseas again. Hell in a handbasket things are going.

[david petley]

Fair enough.

Personally I would like to opt out of paying taxes for illegitimate wars I don't agree with, government subsidies for corporations making record profits, and Bush/Cheney's healthcare and secret service details, just to start MY list.

Yes, I would not want to pay for highways I never drive on...only those that I did.

I would not want to pay for politicians' pensions ...or space research, I don't care about pictures of deep space, so they could use my tax contribution to improve the drainage on the road outside my house instead.

People who live in a community have to realise that there are infrastructure costs in maintaining that community, whether they individually and personally ever have a need for that infrastructure.

Don't like paying for it all, and only the bits you have a need for....bugger off!! Go and make your own lifestyle and be free to behave and spend your money how you want. You can't pick and choose really.

david

<edit for stupid homily>
It's like 50 tightrope walkers, they can either pay for a safety net for all, or the 3 or 4 who are so confident they will not fall can refuse to pay and walk without the net .... but they need to go and find their own tightrope.

[FlashLackey]

You've certainly tried to make that claim, but no statistics or facts back you up.

Except for the fact that the US performs better at keeping people alive when they get cancer, the second leading cause of death for all humans. That fact backs me up quite well.

We spend more per capita than any other country and our quality of care lags us behind almost every other industrialized western nation with national healthcare in almost every indicator.

What indicators? For someone who wants to bark at me about having no statistics or facts to back my position up, you sure are light on providing your own.

Unfortunately, a health savings account will NOT guarantee everyone an insurance policy.
How many people making $7-10 an hour will be able to save enough to put anything into that savings account?

I'm getting the impression that you really have not done your research on this. A health savings account is not simply a bank account to deposit your earnings into. Why would anyone offer that when anyone can already get one of those? Good grief. Look it up.

Do you really not know anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck?

I do. A lot of them are young people who aren't worried about their health and have plenty of money to party, buy ipods, the latest clothes, etc.

What about people who have their hours cut, get laid off, or can't find a job?
How is a savings account going to help them?

Ummm... If they had a government funded health savings account, as proposed by McCain, they would be able to continue paying for their same insurance policy, regardless of getting laid off, switching jobs, etc. The point of the "account" aspect of it is to ensure that if the person doesn't spend that money in a given year, they get to keep it to apply toward their health costs in future years. It just requires that they use the money for health care related expenses.

This is a question about how a country and society treats the least of us with something as basic as healthcare.

No it's not. An entire presidential campaign was run on a platform including a health plan that covered everyone, alternative to Obama's. If anything is "astroturf" it's the liberals attempt to paint all alternatives to their DMV-care solution as being uncaring about the few people who don't have health insurance but want it.

Other countries with national health care spend much less and cover everyone.

Just not as effectively. I'm sorry, life is more important than the dollar.

We spend much more in our privatized system and only cover a percentage of the population.

A very large percentage of the population. A large proportion of the small percentage that is not covered is so by choice.

First of, there was no study done by the Lancet.
The Lancet just publishes other people's papers... and they have been fooled into publishing hoaxes before.

Do you have some evidence showing this one to be a hoax? Or, are you just asserting a bias?

As pointed out earlier, those survivability stats were already shown to be faulty because they only took into account one or two types of cancer that had extremely aggressive early testing in the US, which as our resident cancer expert stated,

And I already responded to that argument. The stats were not faulty at all. The types of cancers were chosen because of how much more common they are than the other types. And, as I pointed out, aggressive early testing is part of caring for the health of people. Thank you for confirming my point that the alternative system does not do that as well at the cost of lives to those cancers.

Not that any of the opposing facts will make a difference to you or anyone else of your ideology that has their mind made up.

Speak for yourself.

The big insurance and drug companies control the message and the government.
Obama is finding that out the hard way.

Please. Cry me a river. When Obama gets elected, liberals say that America has spoken. When the polls show that most Americans don't want his health care plan, liberals blame insurance and drug companies.

The public option for national healthcare died this morning. R.I.P.

Thankfully. It probably saved American lives.

[FlashLackey]

The real difference comes down to the primary goal of each.
The goal of national insurance is to provide medical care (bonuses are given for curing and preventing illness, stopping patient smoking, lowering obesity, lower cholesterol, etc.) as opposed to the goal of private insurance which is to make profit (bonuses are given for delaying claims, denying claims, finding preexisting conditions or other reasons to cancel policies before payment, and successfully defending against claims in court to avoid "medical losses" that affect stockholders shares.)

This is false. The difference comes down to which system serves the people best. Time and time again, history has given us examples of government solutions not performing as well as private solutions. Profit motive has been a fundamental concept to American business since it's founding and has been instrumental toward creating amongst the best (if not the best) quality of living for it's citizens relative to the world.

[Loyal Rogue]

Except for the fact that the US performs better at keeping people alive when they get cancer...

LOL. You are becoming a real one-trick pony.
You keep clinging to a single faulty statistic in spite of all the other indicators that contradict your claims, life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer mortality, physicians per thousand, hospital beds per thousand, per capita expense, etc.
Other than your single distorted claim, there is no evidence that the US ranks anywhere close to the top of industrialized nations in healthcare.

Sorry FL, I don't think any rational person is buying your story anymore than they're buying the manufactured rage at the townhalls about illegal immigrants getting coverage, or gubmint mandated euthanasia, or Obama's birth certificate.
But keep at it... I'm sure if you guys throw enough muck, or repeat the lies enough, the FOX viewers will believe it.

This is false.

LOL.
The actuality is that truer words were never spoken.
Both claims are verifiable.
1) Medical review doctors working for US insurance companies DO get bonuses based on the number of denials. No one disputes that.
2) Doctors in the UK DO get bonuses based on quality of patient care results and positive changes to a patients lifestyle and health. No one disputes that either.

[FlashLackey]

LOL. You are becoming a real one-trick pony.

You said that no statistics or facts back me up. I have shown that they do. You are the one who apparently thinks that assertion is a valid argument.

You keep clinging to a single faulty statistic in spite of all the other indicators that contradict your claims, life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer mortality, physicians per thousand, hospital beds per thousand, per capita expense, etc.

First, I'm not clinging to anything. I posted facts supporting my position. Nothing you have asserted has demonstrated how those facts do not support my position or that they are faulty in any way.

Second, we can go down the life expectancy and infant mortality path if you like. You are mistaken if you think those support your position.

Third, I've already directly addressed cancer mortality and how Americans lifestyle choices are not an indication of quality of health care.

Fourth, physicians per thousand and hospital beds is a new angle to me. Lets hear your facts and we can go over them together.

Fifth, I agree that the expense is too high. I have no argument with that point and have given a proposition for how to deal with that.

Sorry FL, I don't think any rational person is buying your story anymore than they're buying the manufactured rage at the townhalls about illegal immigrants getting coverage, or gubmint mandated euthanasia, or Obama's birth certificate.
But keep at it... I'm sure if you guys throw enough muck, or repeat the lies enough, the FOX viewers will believe it.

You're right. The "story" about birthers was largely manufactured and exaggerated by liberal pundits. Not sure about those other items. But, I believe you that liberal crackpots that I don't typically listen to ramp those things up as well.

Keep dismissing the peoples concern on this issue as the administration has. The polls show that it's working wonders.

LOL.
The actuality is that truer words were never spoken.
Both claims are verifiable.
1) Medical review doctors working for US insurance companies DO get bonuses based on the number of denials. No one disputes that.
2) Doctors in the UK DO get bonuses based on quality of patient care results and positive changes to a patients lifestyle and health. No one disputes that either.

Questioning these claims aside, ok. And whatever problems our system might have surrounding how much things cost, the end result to the people is that we have a better chance of surviving cancer.

Turns out that having the goal of being profitable works well for people. Our entire economy, the one that has done pretty well historically, is based on that concept.

[david petley]

we have a better chance of surviving cancer

...but a shorter life expectancy overall than many other first world countries.

If cancer is your greatest concern, then you should expand your focus a little.

david

[Loyal Rogue]

If cancer is your greatest concern, then you should expand your focus a little.

Not all cancers, DP.
(That infamous tool of treason for Bush/Cheney, Robert Novak, just died of brain cancer today after only 1yr of treatment. Not all the King's horses or all the King's men could give that poor bastard more than 12 months in the absolute best of our healthcare system.)

No, FL is only concerned with the great scourge of mankind, prostate cancer, which our resident cancer PhD confirmed is most unreliable and the worst form of cancer test to base any conclusions from due to the fact that the test doesn't accurately show if you actually have cancer or not.

But the "keep the status quo" big insurance profit cheerleaders aren't concerned with facts.

(Shame that Robbie McTreason didn't simply have an enlarged prostate that FL could claim as another successful stat for his delusions.)
Woo-Hoo!!! We're #1 ... We're #1 ... We're #1 ... at surviving phantom cases of prostate cancer for more than 5 years!!!!

It's like the makers of the Yugo claiming they're the #1 auto maker because they have more cup holders than anyone else.

[gerbick]

The more this thread persists... the more I seriously want to propose a fast food tax.

The segue is in there.

[realMakc]

...since Nazis started fleeing to South America.

and what would you do to save your life.