This 'Sicko' film.

[Undesired Walrus]

So, I've watched it, all very well made and all, like most Moore films, but....

Again, Moore gives his old, boring viewpoint that the world owes you a living. With many of those people, if they were horrible ugly people without the charming American accent, I highly doubt Moore would be tugging the heartstrings in the same fashion. That guy dies on his wifes birthday? Tragic, but... what? How is that Bush's fault? Followed up by Adagio for Strings, it mearly shows how Moore thinks the tragic circumstances are not enough to speak for themselves without chucking Barber in your face.

He goes over to the UK and presents it as a utopia of healthcare. As any Brit knows, the healthcare service is a complete mess of red tape, and in need of major reform. Young, poor guys cannot get jobs here, because if they do, they will simply get worse, as they will have to work many, many hours, and regarding their mental health, it sucks. But if they do not get a job they cannot pay for their wellbeing in terms of accommodation, food etc.
Maybe it simply is not possible in the end to get good healthcare. All these bleeding heart wimps like Moore, really need to simply get off their backside and go into social care, and help these people get through the red tape rather than blaming Bush and Nixon and everyone else apart from themselves.

Life is hell.

That said, I really know hardly anything about healthcare or the NHS, just bits and pieces through my job, so feel free to educate me.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Not only that, Michael Moore is fat and ugly to boot ...

Charlie (evil socialistic health care) MOnoxide

[Oliver]

That said, I really know hardly anything about healthcare or the NHS, just bits and pieces through my job


You nailed it. ;)

[Darat]

...snip...

Young, poor guys cannot get jobs here, because if they do, they will simply get worse, as they will have to work many, many hours, and regarding their mental health, it sucks. But if they do not get a job they cannot pay for their wellbeing in terms of accommodation, food etc.

...snip...

Since we have quite a large number of economic migrants coming into this country taking up the very low paid jobs it is strong evidence that the "young poor guys" could get a job. These may not be considered very "good" jobs but they are still jobs paying enough to tempt people to leave their families and travel to a foreign country to get.

[Undesired Walrus]

You nailed it. ;)

So, I admit I don't know much about the NHS, nor the benefits of socialised healthcare, and you get into your stupid-rhetoric once again and accuse some of my honest to god views of being backward and oh-so-wrong (Because that is what you are doing isn't it boy?), whilst you start your 50 threads a day about absolutely everything, with NOTHING in them you know ANYTHING about. I admit it, YOU DON'T.

In my job, I know some of the problems of socialised healthcare. But I'm rational enough, something you know sod all about, to admit that I dont know the full story.

What the hell is your problem Oliver?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow, great straw.

And what does unemployment have to do with anything? Are you saying that UHC causes more unemployment?

I don't think that any country has perfect healthcare. But the point is, a lot seem to have better than the US.

[Katana]

Wow, great straw.

And what does unemployment have to do with anything? Are you saying that UHC causes more unemployment?

I don't think that any country has perfect healthcare. But the point is, a lot seem to have better than the US.


This is not asked to argue but out of genuine curiosity:

Which countries' healthcare systems do you feel are superior to the US's and why?

Again, I really am interested in your answer.

[Gurdur]

This is not asked to argue but out of genuine curiosity:
Which countries' healthcare systems do you feel are superior to the US's and why?

I'm not Tsukasa Buddha, but I will say flat out that the German and French systems are superior on all metrics to the USA one, and that the British and even the Australian systems are likely quite superior on most significant metrics to the USA.

Reasons given throughout this compilation thread I made (http://www.heathen-hangout.com/forum1/showthread.php?t=7475); read both pages, tons of great info.

[Undesired Walrus]

And what does unemployment have to do with anything? Are you saying that UHC causes more unemployment?


No. I think it should be blindly obvious that I am not.

For me, for ME, unemployment has a lot to do with this system. Young, poor, homeless kids cannot bear to get jobs because they are not in a mental position to do so. But they need to get jobs because they cannot pay for their way in life, and they do not want to stay on benefits. But once they get a job they know they may get worse. I know this problem, people express the red tape to me often. What I say Tsuk, is that Universal Healthcare does not seem to be solving the problems of beuracracy and difficulties for the poor, mentally ill man. It makes it better than America, sure, and they have access to GP's, but for Moore to make out Britain is some sort of utopia (And yes, he DOES, do not deny it) is simply dishonest in an attempt to push his own agenda.

Quit with the 'straw' comments, engage the argument instead.

[nails3jesus0]

With many of those people, if they were horrible ugly people without the charming American accent


people have always told me american accents are annoying.

i agree with the rest of your post... but that part just sort of caught me off gaurd.

[Katana]

I'm not Tsukasa Buddha, but I will say flat out that the German and French systems are superior on all metrics to the USA one, and that the British and even the Australian systems are likely quite superior on most significant metrics to the USA.

Reasons given throughout this compilation thread I made (http://www.heathen-hangout.com/forum1/showthread.php?t=7475); read both pages, tons of great info.


Thanks, Gurdur!

That IS a lot of info - even more in the links in the thread. It will take a bit of time to look through it, but it looks like good stuff. Looks like a fun board, too. :)

I'll never disagree that Sweden's healthcare system is top-notch. That I will definitely give you. I'll read on about France and Germany, though.

It's always a question of measures, ain't it? ;)

[Katana]

people have always told me american accents are annoying.

i agree with the rest of your post... but that part just sort of caught me off gaurd.


I definitely agree that certain American accents are REALLY annoying - even to most Americans.

Notice how I'm not naming which ones? :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is not asked to argue but out of genuine curiosity:

Which countries' healthcare systems do you feel are superior to the US's and why?

Again, I really am interested in your answer.

Well, I base it entirely off of statistics. Looking at the data for cost effectiveness and quality of life, I would say: Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Japan. I knocked off the ones that the US beat in any way. And some weren't in all my lists, so there are probably more, these are just the ones I have more data for.

There is one interesting statistic though. In the US we pay the most for doctors, but we also have more than the other countries.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No. I think it should be blindly obvious that I am not.

For me, for ME, unemployment has a lot to do with this system. Young, poor, homeless kids cannot bear to get jobs because they are not in a mental position to do so. But they need to get jobs because they cannot pay for their way in life, and they do not want to stay on benefits. But once they get a job they know they may get worse. I know this problem, people express the red tape to me often. What I say Tsuk, is that Universal Healthcare does not seem to be solving the problems of beuracracy and difficulties for the poor, mentally ill man. It makes it better than America, sure, and they have access to GP's, but for Moore to make out Britain is some sort of utopia (And yes, he DOES, do not deny it) is simply dishonest in an attempt to push his own agenda.

Quit with the 'straw' comments, engage the argument instead.

Only if you quit with the mean-ness :p .

I see what you are saying now, thanks.

[Segnosaur]

Well, I base it entirely off of statistics. Looking at the data for cost effectiveness and quality of life, I would say: Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Japan. I knocked off the ones that the US beat in any way. And some weren't in all my lists, so there are probably more, these are just the ones I have more data for.


How important do you think cost effectiveness is? Would you rather have a very expensive health care system that can cure any disease, or a really cheap (an universal) one where half the people die early?

As for quality of life... remember, there are a lot of factors that go into measuring that, not all of them health related.

You mentioned Canada as a country with a 'better' system... trouble is, we have extensive waiting lists that they don't have in the U.S. Now, the question about whether Canada's lengthy waiting list makes our system worse than the U.S. system with its higher cost is a philosophical question with no good answer.

[cyborg]

In the US we pay the most for doctors, but we also have more than the other countries.

One should hope so considering the population of the US is larger than the countries you mention.

[Daylight]

This is not asked to argue but out of genuine curiosity:

Which countries' healthcare systems do you feel are superior to the US's and why?

Again, I really am interested in your answer.

Here in the US I currently have no health care.

So for me, any country that has UHC would be a step up.

[Phrost]

Socialized medicine would be a valid safety net if it came along with restrictions that you actually have to be actively minding your own health with sincerity.

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster. Free health care? Woohooo! Extra french fries and fatty meat for me please! Pass the cigarettes too! Exercise? Pshaw.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

One should hope so considering the population of the US is larger than the countries you mention.

I meant statistically, the ratio for doctor to patient.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How important do you think cost effectiveness is? Would you rather have a very expensive health care system that can cure any disease, or a really cheap (an universal) one where half the people die early?

As for quality of life... remember, there are a lot of factors that go into measuring that, not all of them health related.

You mentioned Canada as a country with a 'better' system... trouble is, we have extensive waiting lists that they don't have in the U.S. Now, the question about whether Canada's lengthy waiting list makes our system worse than the U.S. system with its higher cost is a philosophical question with no good answer.

Well, statistically, Americans pays more and die earlier.

And yes, Canada was the only Universal Health Care country that didn't beat the US in terms of wait times.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Socialized medicine would be a valid safety net if it came along with restrictions that you actually have to be actively minding your own health with sincerity.

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster. Free health care? Woohooo! Extra french fries and fatty meat for me please! Pass the cigarettes too! Exercise? Pshaw.

Universal Health Care =/= Socialized Medicine

[Oliver]

Well, statistically, Americans pays more and die earlier.

And yes, Canada was the only Universal Health Care country that didn't beat the US in terms of wait times.


Why does the Media point out that "Canadian-Wait times"-Issue at all instead just saying the truth: "Our system sucks"?

Why is that? Isn't the Mainstream-Media interested to point out the hard facts? Are they sponsored by Lobbies? Don't they have an interest or democratic responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy) in telling facts?

Seriously: What the heck is the reason?

[Ranillon]

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster.

Puleease! This sort of absurdly extreme view of "socialism" is about as accurate as maintaining that Capitalism is nothing more than a diabolical conspiracy by the wealthy to oppress the masses.

If we are just going to deal with one-dimenisional, self-serving stereotypes then what's the use of having a discussion? It would just be like religious zealots shouting scripture at each other!

[boooeee]

My main issue with the film was that Moore deliberately focused on the problem. The real problem with our healthcare system is that millions of us have no health coverage at all. However, at the outset of the film, Moore makes it clear that this is not what Sicko is about. Instead, he focused on those of us with private health insurance.

My own theory is that Moore knows that the "big" problem is the uninsured. But, the cynic in him said that he wouldn't be able to convince the majority of Americans with insurance to change to a single payer system to help the minority of Americans without insurance.

So, instead he tries to convince those of us with private health insurance that it really sucks, and that we'd be better off with government provided healthcare.

He does this by cherry-picking the worst examples from the U.S. system and cherry picking the best from the Canadian, British, and French models. To be fair, he also trots out cold hard statistics that back up some of his points.

Overall, I found it to be an interesting film that was unfortunately clouded by his anti-corporate and anti-profit bias. There are plenty of ways to solve the problem of the uninsured, and they don't all involve government single-payer.

[Oliver]

My main issue with the film was that Moore deliberately focused on the problem. The real problem with our healthcare system is that millions of us have no health coverage at all. However, at the outset of the film, Moore makes it clear that this is not what Sicko is about. Instead, he focused on those of us with private health insurance.

My own theory is that Moore knows that the "big" problem is the uninsured. But, the cynic in him said that he wouldn't be able to convince the majority of Americans with insurance to change to a single payer system to help the minority of Americans without insurance.

So, instead he tries to convince those of us with private health insurance that it really sucks, and that we'd be better off with government provided healthcare.

He does this by cherry-picking the worst examples from the U.S. system and cherry picking the best from the Canadian, British, and French models. To be fair, he also trots out cold hard statistics that back up some of his points.

Overall, I found it to be an interesting film that was unfortunately clouded by his anti-corporate and anti-profit bias. There are plenty of ways to solve the problem of the uninsured, and they don't all involve government single-payer.


The ones without health-care are a minority, right?
So how do you change a health-care-system?

By making a movie about a minority?

-OR-

By making a movie addressing the majority that UHS is better.

Which makes more sense to you? :confused:

[Undesired Walrus]

Only if you quit with the mean-ness :p .

I see what you are saying now, thanks.

Sorry:blush:

[Undesired Walrus]

So, if everyone in the US is insured, does that not drive the cost of health insurance down?

Whilst, at the end of the day, I find it shocking that you have to pay for a broken leg, does it not empower you? That you take responsibility for your body?

My sister is a doctor for the NHS, and she says the main problem is the goevrnment getting too involved. Would it not be better in the US to drive down the income of the CEO?

[Leif Roar]

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster. Free health care? Woohooo! Extra french fries and fatty meat for me please! Pass the cigarettes too! Exercise? Pshaw.

Because the US' health care system is so very, very good at getting people to eat healthy and exercise properly and generally take responsibility for the state of their own bodies?

[Katana]

Because the US' health care system is so very, very good at getting people to eat healthy and exercise properly and generally take responsibility for the state of their own bodies?


So you think that the lower (though rising) rates of obesity in other, developed countries are due to their healthcare systems?

[Leif Roar]

So you think that the lower (though rising) rates of obesity in other, developed countries are due to their healthcare systems?

No; while I do think the healthcare system can have an effect on the obesity problem, there's certainly a lot of other factors, and many that are more significant. For instance, a trivial counter-example is that a pre-industrial country with no healthcare system would have less of a problem with obesity than an industrialised country with an extensive health care system. I also don't see how it would matter if that system is socialised or not -- the things that would matter between health care systems on this issue is "the brass tacks": whether the system focuses on obesity as a health care problem, what mechanisms and methods it chooses to deal with it with. Not how the system is founded.

It just struck me as absurd to basically accuse socialised health-care of making people stop thinking about what they eat and "letting themselves go", when it is the USA's non-socialised system that has the greater problem with obesity per today.

I just don't think there's any evidence at all that his claim has any foundation in reality; I'm not arguing that reality matches the opposite of his claim.

[cyborg]

My sister is a doctor for the NHS, and she says the main problem is the goevrnment getting too involved. Would it not be better in the US to drive down the income of the CEO?

The problem in both instances is trying to run health-care like it can ever be anything other than a net drain on social resources. Attempting to run it like a business is the problem.

Good health-care will cost society. The only question one should need to answer then is this: do I consider health worth the cost?

[Oliver]

So, I admit I don't know much about the NHS, nor the benefits of socialised healthcare, and you get into your stupid-rhetoric once again and accuse some of my honest to god views of being backward and oh-so-wrong (Because that is what you are doing isn't it boy?), whilst you start your 50 threads a day about absolutely everything, with NOTHING in them you know ANYTHING about. I admit it, YOU DON'T.

In my job, I know some of the problems of socialised healthcare. But I'm rational enough, something you know sod all about, to admit that I dont know the full story.

What the hell is your problem Oliver?


I don't want to derail your thread, so I make it short:

The problem with your OP was that you admitted that you know nearly nothing about the NHS and in the "same breath" ranting about how less Moore knows about the NHS, "Presenting it as Utopia of Healthcare".

Now since Moore pointed out that he intentionally pointed out the positive sides of the systems since "America only portrays the negative side of other systems", it absolutely makes sense to me.

Unless, of course, you are bothering about the Americans Media to portray other Healthcare-Systems as being "The social hell on earth", too.

So is the NHS "social Hell on Earth"?

Right, you can't tell that: "I really know hardly anything about healthcare or the NHS". :p

[nails3jesus0]

Because the US' health care system is so very, very good at getting people to eat healthy and exercise properly and generally take responsibility for the state of their own bodies?


that seems like more of an argument against government healthcare... to me anyway. you cant make anyone take care of themselves, but you can make them be responsible for themselves. making everyone else responsible seems wrong to me.

[Tez]

Socialized firefighting would be a valid safety net if it came along with restrictions that you actually have to be actively minding your own fire safety with sincerity.

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster. Free firefighting? Woohooo! Extra (insert your own idiocy here)! Pass the cigarettes too! Exercise? Pshaw.

.....

[pipelineaudio]

Puleease! This sort of absurdly extreme view of "socialism" is about as accurate as maintaining that Capitalism is nothing more than a diabolical conspiracy by the wealthy to oppress the masses.

If we are just going to deal with one-dimenisional, self-serving stereotypes then what's the use of having a discussion? It would just be like religious zealots shouting scripture at each other!

If he were to preface this by saying "a large part of the AMERICAN advocates for socialism" he would have been correct though. Perhaps the socialist manifesto is different in other countries, but the 4:20Culture endorsement of socialism specifically points out that capitalism is in fact a diabolical conspiracy by the wealthy to opress the masses and destroy the environment. Also, that there is plenty of wealth and noone should ever have to work. Also, music is free and downloading mp3's instead of buying them is a human right, as is software piracy.

[boooeee]

The ones without health-care are a minority, right?
So how do you change a health-care-system?

By making a movie about a minority?

-OR-

By making a movie addressing the majority that UHS is better.

Which makes more sense to you? :confused:

How about trying to fix the actual problem? If you have a problem with mine safety, advocate for stricter controls on working conditions for miners. Don't propose that every US citizen needs to wear a hard hat and carry a weeks supply of oxygen and drinking water with them at all times.

We pass laws all the time in the US that protect the interests of a minority. Why should it be any different with this issue?

Personally, I'm in favor of the following approach:

1. Make health insurance coverage mandatory (like auto insurance)
2. Prevent insurance companies from denying applicants based on health status.
3. Provide economic assistance to low-income individuals so that the purchase of health insurance doesn't become an undue financial burden.

Not coincidentally, this is what Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed for California.

[CplFerro]

The lack of a universal health care system is indefensible. People have a right to be taken care of, to not live in Third World conditions, and the US system doesn't fulfill its obligations in that regard. You don't kill people for the sake of avoiding "longer waiting times." Which is all the worse in terms of contagious disease that spread quicker and farther the less medicare is available.

Not that any of this will be remedied by focussing on medicare as a single issue, of course. It's part of the national infrastructure and needs to be tackled as such (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_10-19/2005-19/pdf/48-55_19.eco.pdf).

"In turn, acting to rescue health care can only be successfully done in the same mobilization as for emergency measures for the economy as a whole.“Hard”infrastructure, as well as“soft”(schools, hospitals, etc.), is in crisis—including Amtrak, waterways, and power generation. At the center of it all is the necessity for immediate intervention to preserve the very core of the industrial base of the nation—the machine-tool and factory complex now on the line with the financial crisis ofGeneralMotors and the entire auto sector."

Cpl Ferro

[nails3jesus0]

How about trying to fix the actual problem? If you have a problem with mine safety, advocate for stricter controls on working conditions for miners. Don't propose that every US citizen needs to wear a hard hat and carry a weeks supply of oxygen and drinking water with them at all times.

We pass laws all the time in the US that protect the interests of a minority. Why should it be any different with this issue?

Personally, I'm in favor of the following approach:

1. Make health insurance coverage mandatory (like auto insurance)
2. Prevent insurance companies from denying applicants based on health status.
3. Provide economic assistance to low-income individuals so that the purchase of health insurance doesn't become an undue financial burden.

Not coincidentally, this is what Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed for California.


what i was thinking of was to reform medicaid, to the point that it isnt as hard to get and it covers more people. Like draw the line at an income level where it would be rediculous to not be able to afford insurance(so it wont be available to everyone- just a lot more people), and let everyone below that level either have government healthcare or purchase their own. it seems like a happy comprimise to me, but of course im not an expert at all on this subject.

[Random]

Personally, I'm in favor of the following approach:

1. Make health insurance coverage mandatory (like auto insurance)
2. Prevent insurance companies from denying applicants based on health status.
3. Provide economic assistance to low-income individuals so that the purchase of health insurance doesn't become an undue financial burden.

Not coincidentally, this is what Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed for California.
The big problem I see with this is that you still have people in the mix who can personally profit from you not getting the medical care you need. Why does the solution to America's health care problem have to involve profit taking middlemen?

[T.A.M.]

I will give you some stats to see what you think of my (Canadian) system...

Specialty - Wait Time
---------------------
Dermatology - 4-6 months
Orthopedics - 4-6 months, up to a year for back issues
Internist - 2-4 months
Gen Surgeon - 3-4 months
CT Scan - 2-3 months
Ultrasound - 1-2 months

Wait in typical ER - Depends on Triage level, with level 5 (minor problems) waiting 8-10 hours.

Our highest income tax bracket is 45%, for every dollar over $56,000 (last I checked).

Plus Side:
- Your Doctor is the one who decides what investigations and medication you get.
- NOONE is refused EMERGENCY CARE.
- A large portion of the community has their drugs paid for entirely (age>65, People on welfare).

TAM:)

[Ohmer]

Personally, I'm in favor of the following approach:

1. Make health insurance coverage mandatory (like auto insurance)

25% of drivers in California are still uninsured, despite the law.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/06/28/69919.htm
Who will pay for those who ignore the law? This also adds an undue burden to law enforcement.

2. Prevent insurance companies from denying applicants based on health status.

This forces insurance companies to take customers at a loss, thus driving up costs for everyone. Why not just subsidize those at high risk?

3. Provide economic assistance to low-income individuals so that the purchase of health insurance doesn't become an undue financial burden.


Do this and 1 and 2 become unnecessary. Forcing insurance companies to increase prices due to regulation just increases the number of people who need assistance. Why not just help the high risk people and be done. Expanding programs like Medicade can solve this problem without adding another layer of regulation on the insurance industry. Private insurance will operate at a profit. Increasing regulation will just add costs that will eventually be passed on to the government. Paying up front would be cheaper.

[nails3jesus0]

Plus Side:

- NOONE is refused EMERGENCY CARE.


TAM:)

people arent refused emergency care here either :confused:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How about trying to fix the actual problem? If you have a problem with mine safety, advocate for stricter controls on working conditions for miners. Don't propose that every US citizen needs to wear a hard hat and carry a weeks supply of oxygen and drinking water with them at all times.

We pass laws all the time in the US that protect the interests of a minority. Why should it be any different with this issue?

Personally, I'm in favor of the following approach:

1. Make health insurance coverage mandatory (like auto insurance)
2. Prevent insurance companies from denying applicants based on health status.
3. Provide economic assistance to low-income individuals so that the purchase of health insurance doesn't become an undue financial burden.

Not coincidentally, this is what Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed for California.

You can't afford this. No country can afford this.

Not everyone can be given whatever service they need (or want) without limit. There has to be some "gatekeeping" at some point. Your 89-year old grandmother does not get the lung transplant, sorry.

The latest issue of Consumer Reports has the first article of a three part series on health care in the US. This should be read by everyone interested in the "problem" and how it has come to be. One thing I noted was that, in the US, wait times are obviously reduced by the number of people who, even with a health care plan, do not seek medical help because they cannot afford it. They cannot afford the co-payments or their plans are capped in some way so they don't enter the system.

In the US medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. See:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
In Canada this just does not happen.

I'm a small "s" socialist and I've never eaten a baby in my life. :boggled:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I will give you some stats to see what you think of my (Canadian) system...

Specialty - Wait Time
---------------------
Dermatology - 4-6 months
Orthopedics - 4-6 months, up to a year for back issues
Internist - 2-4 months
Gen Surgeon - 3-4 months
CT Scan - 2-3 months
Ultrasound - 1-2 months

Wait in typical ER - Depends on Triage level, with level 5 (minor problems) waiting 8-10 hours.

Our highest income tax bracket is 45%, for every dollar over $56,000 (last I checked).

Plus Side:
- Your Doctor is the one who decides what investigations and medication you get.
- NOONE is refused EMERGENCY CARE.
- A large portion of the community has their drugs paid for entirely (age>65, People on welfare).

TAM:)

What is missed in the Wait Times is any indication of need. And some of them seem a bit high anyway. I can find the wait times at any hospital in Ontario at:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/public/wt_public_mn.html#
and pick (my choice) the one with the shortest if I wish. I recently asked my eye doctor (also surgeon) how long it takes to get a cataract operation and he said two weeks.

In any case, the most recent time I needed an ultrasound my family doctor sent me down the hall to the clinic and they asked if I wanted it now. I was finished in an hour.

It is important to note that no one and no organization overrules your doctor except the specialist to whom he has referred you.

[boooeee]

25% of drivers in California are still uninsured, despite the law.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/06/28/69919.htm
Who will pay for those who ignore the law? This also adds an undue burden to law enforcement.
To be honest, enforcement is my main concern with the proposal. The mandate needs to have some teeth, with significant penalties for non-compliance.


This forces insurance companies to take customers at a loss, thus driving up costs for everyone. Why not just subsidize those at high risk?

The idea behind the proposal is that there are two sets of people in the uninsured population right now:

1. Those too sick to pass underwriting.
2. Those who are healthy and don't feel they need it.

The hope is that by pulling both of these into the insured pool, their costs will offset and there won't be a need for large premium increases.

Do this and 1 and 2 become unnecessary. Forcing insurance companies to increase prices due to regulation just increases the number of people who need assistance. Why not just help the high risk people and be done. Expanding programs like Medicade can solve this problem without adding another layer of regulation on the insurance industry. Private insurance will operate at a profit. Increasing regulation will just add costs that will eventually be passed on to the government. Paying up front would be cheaper.
The advantage of a mandate is that it encourages more efficient use of the healthcare system. If you're uninsured, you're probably going to wait until things get really bad before you decide to seek care. You're also more likely to use the ER since you know you can't be turned away. If you're forced to have insurance, you can make an appointment with your family doctor to have it looked at.

Although, if I had to choose between a single-payer overhaul, or just expanding Medicaid, I would definitely prefer the latter.

[boooeee]

You can't afford this. No country can afford this.

Not everyone can be given whatever service they need (or want) without limit. There has to be some "gatekeeping" at some point. Your 89-year old grandmother does not get the lung transplant, sorry.

The latest issue of Consumer Reports has the first article of a three part series on health care in the US. This should be read by everyone interested in the "problem" and how it has come to be. One thing I noted was that, in the US, wait times are obviously reduced by the number of people who, even with a health care plan, do not seek medical help because they cannot afford it. They cannot afford the co-payments or their plans are capped in some way so they don't enter the system.

In the US medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy. See:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
In Canada this just does not happen.

I'm a small "s" socialist and I've never eaten a baby in my life. :boggled:

I was confused by the beginning of your reply, but I think I understand now.

When I referred to preventing insurance companies from "denying" applicants based on health status, I meant denying their application for coverage in general, not denying a specific procedure. I am well aware of the need for cost containment when it comes to healthcare. Michael Moore seems to think cost containment and denial of procedures only happens in for-profit healthcare, when in fact you are exactly correct, no country can afford writing a blank check to doctors and hospitals.

Thanks for the heads up on the Consumer Reports article. I'll try to check it out.

I'm a small "l" libertarian. I'll send you some recipes.

[balrog666]

The lack of a universal health care system is indefensible. People have a right to be taken care of, to not live in Third World conditions, and the US system doesn't fulfill its obligations in that regard.


Oh, goody, will you be paying for any of that? No? Then get your stinking hand out of my wallet, you freeloader!


You don't kill people for the sake of avoiding "longer waiting times." Which is all the worse in terms of contagious disease that spread quicker and farther the less medicare is available.

Not that any of this will be remedied by focussing on medicare as a single issue, of course. It's part of the national infrastructure and needs to be tackled as such (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_10-19/2005-19/pdf/48-55_19.eco.pdf).

"In turn, acting to rescue health care can only be successfully done in the same mobilization as for emergency measures for the economy as a whole.“Hard”infrastructure, as well as“soft”(schools, hospitals, etc.), is in crisis—including Amtrak, waterways, and power generation. At the center of it all is the necessity for immediate intervention to preserve the very core of the industrial base of the nation—the machine-tool and factory complex now on the line with the financial crisis ofGeneralMotors and the entire auto sector."

Cpl Ferro


You're too late; you're tilting at windmills that have long since departed.

[stup_id]

Being a medical student, and being involved in an international organisation devoted to such topics (IFMSA, www.ifmsa.org ), i have so far come with only one core opinion about US Healthcare: (and it is personal opinion.. )

Healthcare can't be a bussinss, it cannot be a way of making profit...

I think that is the main difference with other first-world healthcare systems, is that deènding on the goverment the incomes are only to pay fairly to doctors and also the expenses of the health-related procedures, it doesn't have to comply with the "burden" of having someone making profit od the process, and furthermore, it promotes preventive medicine since it is better (even economically in this approach) to have a healthy numerous population for the system to work.

Once you add to the equation, a Health insurance Co/HMO/Pharma INdustry wanting to make profit of an issue that is already very expensive (in the sense that incomes and expenses are almost balanced), you intentionally or unintentionally will end up with policies meant to "lower costs", and health is too precious to be dependant on economic apporaches; besides if being "mildly sick" (namely to be sick enough to expend on medicines an procedures plus your medical bills so you produce more money for this HMO) is the perfect client, this discourages preventive medicine as long as it is more profitable for the HMO's to make you pay for procedures... ( of course the argument can also be made that it is better for INsurance companies to have a numerous healthy insured population... but what is the reach of them compared to organised government healthcare)

This is so far what i've thought about this particular topic

[Doc Daneeka]

I had to go to the emergency room the other night. I waited a grand total of 31 minutes. It cost me nothing, directly.

I have lived in both the USA and Canada. I can't for the life of me see why I would choose to use the American system. The only case I can think of in which it would be a better option would be the one where I had a large disposable income.

For the record, my taxes would be higher were I to live in most US states. Please don't rant about how Canadian taxes are oppressive. That is simply idiotic.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There is an article in the August 23 Globe and Mail on this topic: American ex-pats critique our health care

Given the qualifications it notes, it seems a reasonable analyis.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070823.wlpicard23/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

[plumjam]

Socialized medicine would be a valid safety net if it came along with restrictions that you actually have to be actively minding your own health with sincerity.

But considering that the core tenets behind it (Socialism in general) are founded on the idea that you should expect the rest of the world to help carry the burdens of your life instead of taking responsibility for your own ups and downs, it's just a recipe for disaster. Free health care? Woohooo! Extra french fries and fatty meat for me please! Pass the cigarettes too! Exercise? Pshaw.

so because people in the USA are forced to pay an arm and a leg for health insurance, perhaps this is why so many of them feel "liberated" to become morbidly obese couch potatoes?
perhaps they almost feel a kind of moral pressure to do so - you know, kind of getting maximum value for money.

[Phrost]

so because people in the USA are forced to pay an arm and a leg for health insurance, perhaps this is why so many of them feel "liberated" to become morbidly obese couch potatoes?
perhaps they almost feel a kind of moral pressure to do so - you know, kind of getting maximum value for money.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means.

[plumjam]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means.

you were implying that socialised health care would "free up" people to indulge themselves in eating lots of junk food and doing no exercise. In fact the worst society in the developed world for this is the USA.

[Phrost]

you were implying that socialised health care would "free up" people to indulge themselves in eating lots of junk food and doing no exercise. In fact the worst society in the developed world for this is the USA.

Which is because of culture. Giving people who are already are accustomed to eating garbage and not exercising a free pass when it comes to health would be pouring flammable pancake syrup on the McGriddle fire.

I'm not sure how you missed that point. Taking more money from everyone in society by force of government in order to pay for those people who've consistently chosen not to be responsible for themselves, is an idiotic concept be it through welfare, housing, or health services.

But it sure is a nice thing to do.

[Ranillon]

I'm not sure how you missed that point. Taking more money from everyone in society by force of government in order to pay for those people who've consistently chosen not to be responsible for themselves, is an idiotic concept be it through welfare, housing, or health services.


If you actually think that the only reason people are sick, homeless, or poor is just because they are lazy or refuse to "be responsible for themselves" then I suggest you go see a doctor -- apparently you are missing both your brain and your heart.

The notion that the powerless are completely to blame for their condition is perhaps the greatest example of double-speak in existence -- not to mention the most unfair. At least if you talk of the rich in such one-dimensional self-serving terms they still get to enjoy being rich. No such comfort for the poor and powerless.

[Phrost]

If you actually think that the only reason people are sick, homeless, or poor is just because they are lazy or refuse to "be responsible for themselves" then I suggest you go see a doctor -- apparently you are missing both your brain and your heart.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly with me considering I grew up dirt poor.


The notion that the powerless are completely to blame for their condition is perhaps the greatest example of double-speak in existence -- not to mention the most unfair. At least if you talk of the rich in such one-dimensional self-serving terms they still get to enjoy being rich. No such comfort for the poor and powerless.

Life's not supposed to be fair, and that's the failure in your thinking. Nor is it the job of a just government to force people, on threat of prison, to be charitable. If you want to help people who you feel are "powerless" (Marxism for the win, eh?), by all means. I'll even think you're a better person for doing it.

But when you try to legislate your hand into my back pocket based on your personal views on how charitable I should be, you're no different than the religious right abusing democracy in order to push their own beliefs and agendas. And I'm constantly amazed at how many self-described "Skeptics" don't get this simple concept.

I already give back to society in my own way. I sacrificed 7 years of my youth in the Military. I bust frauds and protect consumers of the Martial Arts (and do so at risk to myself and family on some occasions).

However, I will not support the notion that any group of people who are not handicapped either mentally or physically, are "powerless". You make choices every minute of every day of your life, whether you were born into money, or live in a house with holes in its floor and rats in your living room like I did growing up. And we already have plenty of programs out there that enable people to be successful; arguably too many of them.

So if you're poor in the United States and not disabled in some way, you really do have no excuse. You've made poor choices. Again, life's not supposed to be fair. If it were, we'd all be 6' tall and of equal strength, intelligence, and beauty. Walmart greeter jobs would pay the same as the CEO, we'd all drive white Toyota Camrys, and every restaurant would be Taco Bell.

I wonder how sheltered of a life someone has to have that they can reach adulthood with such candy-coated idealism.

[Ranillon]

Life's not supposed to be fair, and that's the failure in your thinking.


Sure, life may not be fair, but human beings can be.

Unlike hurricanes or earthquakes or deadly viruses which are just mindless forces of nature human beings have consciousness and therefore choice. We might not be able to convince, say, the AIDS virus to be nice and not bother us, but we can work to find a cure while taking care of those with the disease as best we can.

When someone uses the tired excuse of "life is unfair" when speaking of their own actions then they are basically just making excuses for their own self-absorbed behavior. People aren't viruses without choice -- they can work to make "life" less unfair.


Nor is it the job of a just government to force people, on threat of prison, to be charitable.


You speak of personal "responsibility", but all your argument amounts to is a rationalization of how to get out of your own social responsibilities. All the conveniences of civilization and modern life didn't just crop up on their own -- they exist because as a group human beings brought them into existence for the best sort of win-win reasons. Not only does it help society in general prosper, but it also serves the interests of the individual by helping to better assure his or her own life and happiness.

However, your attitude is that of a person who somehow thinks that all the comforts of civilization he enjoys were given to him by God -- or, somehow, that it all came into existence through just his own actions. You are like the guy who refuses to pay his heating or water bill because he thinks access to such things is an axiomatic law of nature. Therefore, to pay his bill amounts to being "charitable" to the companies involved and no one should "force" him to be charitable.

So, stop trying to get a free ride -- if you want to enjoy the benefits of civilization and modern society then you have to put in your fair share.


But when you try to legislate your hand into my back pocket based on your personal views on how charitable I should be, you're no different than the religious right abusing democracy in order to push their own beliefs and agendas.


Actually, the whole idea that it is just "charity" is bogus. There are good, purely selfish reasons to want universal health care -- not only do you get to benefit from it personally, but it makes for a happier and more productive society in general. The whole morality angle is important, but even if we take that out of the equation there an overwhelming rationale for making sure people in general stay healthy.

But, your argument is broken on an even deeper level -- your line of reasoning could be used to argue against, well, any social obligation or responsibility. Aren't laws against murder and theft attempts to "impose" a type of morality on someone? Aren't taxes for infrastructure or the military just forced contributions for the sake of other people who can't otherwise defend themselves or get a good SUV?

Basically, the logical end point of your argument is that the individual shouldn't be forced to do anything he doesn't want to. In short, its a license to not just be as selfish as you want to be, but to actually elevate such selfishness to a moral virtue.

Or, to come at it from the other direction, you are arguing for "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest". If people don't have the power to get what they want, well, it's the own stupid fault for not being powerful.

This reminds me of the line from Unforgiven. When Eastwood's character shoots someone is cold blood and an appalled observer points out that he just shot an unarmed man he just rationalizes his act away by insisting, "He should have armed himself."


I already give back to society in my own way. I sacrificed 7 years of my youth in the Military.


Good for you, but are you honestly suggesting that being a good citizen is something you just pay off (through money or effort) and then after that you are free of all social responsbility?


I wonder how sheltered of a life someone has to have that they can reach adulthood with such candy-coated idealism.

All you are offering us is a self-validating mythology where somehow reality itself bends to human effort and willpower. Therefore, by definition the rich and successful got that way only because they worked and desired to be so enough to make reality bend to their will while by definition the poor and powerless only have themselves to blame since clearly they didn't have the necessary effort and desire. You look at the end result and then justify it. And here I always thought that the reverse approach represented good skepticism.

In reality, your argument is nothing more than "every man for himself". In your worldview we are all individuals struggling against each other in the midst of a cruel world. With that sort of view then there is no such thing as selfishness -- or, more accurately, I guess everything is selfnesses. Therefore, by unavoidable implication any act is okay if you have the power to get away with it. The notion that we human beings are a group and that as a group we can make the world a better place -- or, merely, that we have responsibilities to our larger society -- seems lost to you.

[Earthborn]

Which is because of culture.Culture is of course not a fixed thing, and governments have an influence on a culture. Cultures in which it is generally accepted that the government takes an active role in ensuring the health and wellbeing of the population, are also cultures in which the population generally accepts that the government tries to discourage people from unhealthy lifestyles.

Taking more money from everyone in society by force of government in order to pay for those people who've consistently chosen not to be responsible for themselves, is an idiotic concept be it through welfare, housing, or health services.Government need to find a balance between expecting people to be responsible for themselves, and protecting society from people who are not responsible for themselves. You can't expect everyone to be equally responsible and the people who are not can become costly for others. Therefore you need to make sure the people who are not self-responsible enough to pay into the healthcare system just like the people who are responsible.

Life's not supposed to be fairSays who?

And I'm constantly amazed at how many self-described "Skeptics" don't get this simple concept.I'm amazed that you don't get the simple concept that democracy all about different groups of people (ab)using democracy to push their own beliefs and agendas.

However, I will not support the notion that any group of people who are not handicapped either mentally or physically, are "powerless".Of course, when discussing healthcare, people who are mentally or physically handicapped are very relevant.

So if you're poor in the United States and not disabled in some way, you really do have no excuse. You've made poor choices.Everybody makes poor choices once in a while. Not everyone suffers consequences of the same severity because of those choices. Not everyone can be expected to make the same quality of choices as everyone else. Not everyone lives in environments that promote making good choices.

[Phrost]

Hi guys, thanks for responding. Swamped here at work so I can't address the responses directly until later tonight.

In the meantime, I'd like to have someone address this specifically:

What is the difference between using the democratic process to force upon others your religious beliefs/morals/values, and using the democratic process to impose your secular ones regarding charity?

In a truly free society, shouldn't the choice regarding both one's faith, and one's level of charity, be in the hands of the individual and not the state?

[Earthborn]

What is the difference between using the democratic process to force upon others your religious beliefs/morals/values, and using the democratic process to impose your secular ones regarding charity?I personally don't think there is much difference. Therefore a democratic government needs to be organised in such a way that it finds balance between different views and different interests.

In a truly free society,Define "truly free". Does it mean only libertarians get a say?

I don't believe any society can be "truly free" because by definition in a society one does not live alone, but rather in a social group with others. Every individual within a society needs to adjust their behaviour to the needs and views of others. For example: a society with diverse views, people need to be tolerant of other people's views.

shouldn't the choice regarding both one's faith,Governments are rather ineffective at directly changing people's beliefs, so it is bad idea if they even try.

and one's level of charity,Governments are also rather ineffective at making people feel charitable. But they do make laws that mandate how much at a minimum people are expected to contribute to the benefit of others. People who work may be mandated to pay taxes to the benefit of people who are unemployed, and at the same time people who are unemployed may be mandated to apply for jobs to the benefit of people who work and pay taxes. Effective governments find a balance between conflicting interests.

You make it sound like universal healthcare is "charity", but in much of the Western world taking care of the health and wellbeing of the populace is considered one of the primary functions of government. It is not seen as an individual responsibility, because disease does not always limit itself to a single individual. One person with multiresistant TB who doesn't take his medication because he's not responsible enough, or can't pay for it, is a serious problem for all of society. Even if the disease is not infectious, the consequences of disease may not be limited to a single individual. Loss of productivity, and if medical treatment requires high direct payments bankrupcies and unpaid debts, are all things that affect everyone in the end.

It is not just being nice and charitable to eachother, it is also about making sure society functions as a whole and reducing the suffering caused by disease. Your own disease, or someone else's.

[Phrost]

Sure, life may not be fair, but human beings can be.

So "Skeptic", please tell me what the objective definition of "fair" is. Because I guarantee my definition is different than yours.


Unlike hurricanes or earthquakes or deadly viruses which are just mindless forces of nature human beings have consciousness and therefore choice. We might not be able to convince, say, the AIDS virus to be nice and not bother us, but we can work to find a cure while taking care of those with the disease as best we can.

When someone uses the tired excuse of "life is unfair" when speaking of their own actions then they are basically just making excuses for their own self-absorbed behavior. People aren't viruses without choice -- they can work to make "life" less unfair.


The key here is that you're making decisions on my behalf as to what I should do with my income based on your morality.


You speak of personal "responsibility", but all your argument amounts to is a rationalization of how to get out of your own social responsibilities. All the conveniences of civilization and modern life didn't just crop up on their own -- they exist because as a group human beings brought them into existence for the best sort of win-win reasons. Not only does it help society in general prosper, but it also serves the interests of the individual by helping to better assure his or her own life and happiness.


You write as if all of these innovations and advances were made specifically to benefit humanity. If I remember this right, the #1 reason for innovation throughout human history has been conflict and warfare and all beneficial advancements from such have been incidental.


However, your attitude is that of a person who somehow thinks that all the comforts of civilization he enjoys were given to him by God -- or, somehow, that it all came into existence through just his own actions. You are like the guy who refuses to pay his heating or water bill because he thinks access to such things is an axiomatic law of nature. Therefore, to pay his bill amounts to being "charitable" to the companies involved and no one should "force" him to be charitable.


Umm, no. No idea where you got that "God" garbage. The entire paragraph above is a complete mischaracterization of everything I've ever written on this subject, ever. If you aren't willing to read what I've written well enough that you understand it, do me a favor and don't reply ok?

I'm just going to stop here.

[Phrost]

Culture is of course not a fixed thing, and governments have an influence on a culture. Cultures in which it is generally accepted that the government takes an active role in ensuring the health and wellbeing of the population, are also cultures in which the population generally accepts that the government tries to discourage people from unhealthy lifestyles.

Fair enough, plenty of planet for everyone (for a while at least). I, and others like me however, would rather have the freedom to succeed or fail on our own merits and not live in a nanny state with cradle-to-grave hand holding.

Partly because such states require a frightening degree of power and control over people's lives in order to operate, and this has always been prone to fall into tyranny throughout history.


Government need to find a balance between expecting people to be responsible for themselves, and protecting society from people who are not responsible for themselves. You can't expect everyone to be equally responsible and the people who are not can become costly for others. Therefore you need to make sure the people who are not self-responsible enough to pay into the healthcare system just like the people who are responsible.


I'm sorry, but you're rewarding those who are irresponsible while penalizing everyone else for being good citizens. That's ass-backwards as far as I'm concerned.


I'm amazed that you don't get the simple concept that democracy all about different groups of people (ab)using democracy to push their own beliefs and agendas.


I get it completely. That's why I'm asking if there's any fundamental difference between one group using government to push its beliefs on compulsory charity, and another pushing their beliefs on invisible men in the sky.


Of course, when discussing healthcare, people who are mentally or physically handicapped are very relevant.

Everybody makes poor choices once in a while. Not everyone suffers consequences of the same severity because of those choices. Not everyone can be expected to make the same quality of choices as everyone else. Not everyone lives in environments that promote making good choices.

I fully support the care of the weaker members of our society. I do not support the supporting of those who refuse support themselves (worded this way to add a bit of levity to a statement some would call heartless).

Everyone has their own life to live. A society's laws dictates what happens at the intersections of people's lives. The fewer the laws, the smaller the government. The smaller the government, the greater the individual freedoms. If you wish to support other people beyond the basic framework, then you deserve credit for it. If you wish to add more layers to the framework in order to forcibly compel others to do so, you deserve disdain.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between using force of government to compel people to be charitable, and compel them to believe in Jesus. Both are individual beliefs and moral structures founded on irrational and emotional notions.

[Earthborn]

So "Skeptic", please tell me what the objective definition of "fair" is.There is no objective definition of "fair", but there are great similarities between people on what they consider fair, and people can come to mutual agreements to what is fair.

The key here is that you're making decisions on my behalf as to what I should do with my income based on your morality.The key here is that you're making the decision on society's behalf that the income is 'yours' based on your morality. But it is not your decision to make. Should society (lots of other people) decide that it is not your income, then it is not your income.

You write as if all of these innovations and advances were made specifically to benefit humanity.All these innovations and advances were made specifically because people thought they would benefit humanity.

If I remember this right, the #1 reason for innovation throughout human history has been conflict and warfare and all beneficial advancements from such have been incidental.You have no evidence for this. Conflict and warfare didn't bring us sewage systems and water treatment plants. Not even road systems (except maybe in Germany).

I, and others like me however, would rather have the freedom to succeed or fail on our own merits and not live in a nanny state with cradle-to-grave hand holding.You say that now. You'll change your mind when/if you start to suffer huge medical expenses and lose your health insurance. If you fail, especially if it is through no fault of your own, you are going to hope that you do not fail too harshly. That someone is there to cushion your fall.

Partly because such states require a frightening degree of power and control over people's lives in order to operate, and this has always been prone to fall into tyranny throughout history."Tyranny" is a bit of exageration. It is true that such states tend to become quite authoritarian at first, but there are plenty of examples that have grown out of their authoritarian ways and manage to become countries that are quite free. France is a good example.

I'm sorry, but you're rewarding those who are irresponsible while penalizing everyone else for being good citizens.You can also call it "protecting the irresponsible against themselves, and protecting everyone else against the irresponsible."

I do not support the supporting of those who refuse support themselvesHow do you feel about people who refuse to buy health insurance, but do expect to be treated for free at an emergency room?

Everyone has their own life to live.Meaningless rhetoric.

A society's laws dictates what happens at the intersections of people's lives.People's lives intersect everywhere and always (as long as they're not hermits). Their lives are completely interdependent.

The fewer the laws, the smaller the government.Assertion without evidence.

The smaller the government, the greater the individual freedoms.Assertion without evidence, and plenty of counter-examples; countries with big governments and great individual freedom, and countries with little governments and little individual freedom.

If you wish to support other people beyond the basic framework, then you deserve credit for it.You do realise of course that for most of the Western world, healthcare belongs to the "basic framework" ?

Both are individual beliefs and moral structures founded on irrational and emotional notions.Are you saying that a healthcare system that provides healthcare to all, does not bankrupt anyone, and does not rely on forcing healthcare providers to provide healthcare without being paid, is irrational?

[Phrost]

There is no objective definition of "fair", but there are great similarities between people on what they consider fair, and people can come to mutual agreements to what is fair.

Nice dodge. Sorry, not good enough. If you're going to toss around a concept as an absolute, you need to qualify it as such first.


The key here is that you're making the decision on society's behalf that the income is 'yours' based on your morality. But it is not your decision to make. Should society (lots of other people) decide that it is not your income, then it is not your income.


No, my income is my income because it is what I am given in exchange for my skills and effort. Should lots of other people decide it is their income, they're likely to get shot for their troubles unless they chose to go through government to obtain it.

What's the difference between using force of violence, and force of government to obtain the money I've earned to use for your own purposes (arguably moral or otherwise)?


All these innovations and advances were made specifically because people thought they would benefit humanity.


You have no evidence for this.


You have no evidence for this. Conflict and warfare didn't bring us sewage systems and water treatment plants. Not even road systems (except maybe in Germany).


The interstate system was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. It had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower- who was influenced by both his experiences as a young soldier crossing the country in 1919 following the route of the Lincoln Highway and his appreciation of the German autobahn network - as a necessary component of a national defense system. [3] It would be able to provide key ground transport of military supplies and troop deployments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System



You say that now. You'll change your mind when/if you start to suffer huge medical expenses and lose your health insurance. If you fail, especially if it is through no fault of your own, you are going to hope that you do not fail too harshly. That someone is there to cushion your fall.

Fine by me. If I haven't chosen to prepare sufficiently to make it through life then it's my own damn fault for making poor choices, and not yours.

I know it must be a shock to you, but some people actually do prefer to live on their own merits and don't feel it's "fair" to expect random strangers to support them when things are rough. If your system was voluntary and not compulsory, I'd have no qualms with waiving my "free" healthcare benefits in exchange for being able to decide what I should do the money I earned through my own effort.


"Tyranny" is a bit of exageration. It is true that such states tend to become quite authoritarian at first, but there are plenty of examples that have grown out of their authoritarian ways and manage to become countries that are quite free. France is a good example.


France's government is nowhere as large or comprehensive as China's, or the former Soviet Union.


You can also call it "protecting the irresponsible against themselves, and protecting everyone else against the irresponsible."


SPIN!


How do you feel about people who refuse to buy health insurance, but do expect to be treated for free at an emergency room?


I feel they should be forced to pay for their treatment one way or another. Then again, I support a job corps for people instead of giving them welfare checks.


Assertion without evidence, and plenty of counter-examples; countries with big governments and great individual freedom, and countries with little governments and little individual freedom.


You're missing the irony screaming from the above paragraph.


You do realise of course that for most of the Western world, healthcare belongs to the "basic framework" ?


Which is why we're debating this in the first place.


Are you saying that a healthcare system that provides healthcare to all, does not bankrupt anyone, and does not rely on forcing healthcare providers to provide healthcare without being paid, is irrational?

No, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words into my mouth. You still didn't answer my question.

What's the difference between you imposing your morality and a Christian imposing his?

[Earthborn]

If you're going to toss around a concept as an absolute,I'm not tossing any concept around as an absolute.

No, my income is my income because it is what I am given in exchange for my skills and effort.No, your income is yours only if society has decided that what you are given in exchange for your skill and effort is yours. Claiming that the money you have to pay in taxes is actually yours doesn't make it so. You'll need other people to agree with you. And the people who have something to say on the matter disagree. Part of your income is not yours, it is society's.

Should lots of other people decide it is their income, they're likely to get shot for their troubles unless they chose to go through government to obtain it.If lots of people decide that it is society's then you can be sure they'll use the government to obtain it.

What's the difference between using force of violence, and force of government to obtain the money I've earned to use for your own purposes (arguably moral or otherwise)?The difference is that if the government does it, it is decided (by the government) that it is legitimate, (unless another part of the government has decided that it is not.) If you disagree that it is legitimate you may try to push your beliefs/moral/values using the democratic process.

You have no evidence for this.Maybe not, but i don't think it is reasonable to assume that people invent and innovate without thinking their innovations and inventions might benefit humanity.

The interstate system (snip) troop deployments.What's that supposed to prove?

I know it must be a shock to you, but some people actually do prefer to live on their own merits and don't feel it's "fair" to expect random strangers to support them when things are rough.It does not come as a shock to me, because I know that there are also people who prefer not to wear their car seatbelt or motorcycle helmets. There are limits though to the level of preventable suffering societies tolerate just because it is self-inflicted.

If your system was voluntary and not compulsory, I'd have no qualms with waiving my "free" healthcare benefits in exchange for being able to decide what I should do the money I earned through my own effort.I suggest that you should live in the Netherlands and register yourself as a conscientious objector to mandatory health insurance. That way you'll just get the bill yourself, and it will probably be substantially lower than what you pay for the same procedures in the States. I'm sure you won't worry about the fact that without health insurance you are not eligible for any government support programmes. I doubt you'll be able to deduct your medical costs from your taxes as "extraordinary medical costs" though.

I sure hope that you won't fall ill and bankrupt yourself though. Government debt relief programmes are soo expensive.

France's government is nowhere as large or comprehensive as China's, or the former Soviet Union.Not anymore, no. But its history provides a much better example of how authoritarian government healthcare can become. The French philosopher Michel Foucault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault) even coined the word Biopower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower) -- the state seizing control over human biology -- to describe it. But today's France also shows that a government does not necessarily need to be large and comprehensive and 'tyrannical' to be able provide extensive health programmes.

SPIN!True, but not more or less so than your own formulation.

I feel they should be forced to pay for their treatment one way or another.I'll assume that you are not a complete bastard and that you don't think people who cannot pay should be left dying, and I'll further assume that you are smart enough to understand that it is not a good thing to bankrupt people by making them pay more than they actually can, so I can only come to one conclusion: you are in favour of universal healthcare.

Then again, I support a job corps for people instead of giving them welfare checks.Spoken like an old-school Social Democrat. You might like this (http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20060919zkkfg/internationale-en-sheffield_socialist_choir_1992.mp3).

NoOkay.

What's the difference between you imposing your morality and a Christian imposing his?You answered the question yourself when you said 'no' above. According to you, one of those moralities is not based on 'irrational' beliefs.

[parky76]

TAM- where did you get those statistics for average wait times?

I just watched Sicko...and as I am with most Moore movies..I'm in shock.

How can a nation that claims to be so moral, so caring, so Christian, so generous, allow its fellow citizens to go without the healthcare we need..or go broke trying to get it. How can the "leader of the free world" be behind most western democracies in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, etc?

What kind of a "nation" are we if we just worry about ourselves and are willing to let our neighbor die in the street?

[Ranillon]

So "Skeptic", please tell me what the objective definition of "fair" is. Because I guarantee my definition is different than yours.


It was (obviously) the simple observation that as human beings we are conscious creatures able to alter the world to better fit our wants and desires. We've been doing so for as long as we've been a species. That means that -- while maybe we can't create paradise -- we can certainly improve our collective situation.

And, be careful about your criticism of "objective" ideas -- you're whole argument is based on the implicit assumption that we are trapped in an "unfair" world that, apparently, we can't do anything meaningful to fix. I'm just pointing out how that is manifestly incorrect.


The key here is that you're making decisions on my behalf as to what I should do with my income based on your morality.


This argument only works if we assume that the individual has no obligations to his larger social system, even if that system provides him with various benefits. Is this honestly what you are arguing?

If not, then your argument about "morality" is nothing more than an arbitrary label, one where you apply completely subjective determinations of what is "good" or "bad" when it comes to using taxes. Yet, of course, you offer these subjective evaluations as if they are in fact objective. Sorry, but you need to do better than that.

Now, you could argue against universal health care on practical grounds, I suppose, but your argument about morality or impositions is a non-starter.


You write as if all of these innovations and advances were made specifically to benefit humanity. If I remember this right, the #1 reason for innovation throughout human history has been conflict and warfare and all beneficial advancements from such have been incidental.


Another, at best, subjective judgment that doesn't pass even the basic logic test. If progress was only the result of conflict how is it that human population has been steadily rising over the centuries while civilization has become increasing sophisticated? If all that was merely to better kill people then we sure don't seem to be doing a good job of things.


Umm, no. No idea where you got that "God" garbage.


It's called a metaphor.


The entire paragraph above is a complete mischaracterization of everything I've ever written on this subject, ever.


Not at all. In fact, I am merely pointing out the clear, if implicit, reality suggested by your statements. Your determination of health care being nothing more than "imposing morality" seems clearly arbitrary and subjective, far more in keeping the angry musings of a person who has confused cynicism with wisdom than a rational, skeptical point-of-view backed with facts and logic.

If pointing this out makes you uncomfortable, I am sorry, but as the old saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat......"