Affordable and Quality Health Care

[han]

I read a post of Luke Warm who explained that you are not the crazy village moron I always took you for. No, instead it is you who understands these topics much better than us, and by your nonsensical questions and sarcasm you keep us on our toes and stimulate our brain cells.

 

Well, I don't agree. It is easy to ridicule the opinions of others, and even easier to ridicule the thought processes of the American voter. Much harder is it to say what you actually think yourself. After all, once you argue for something you actually believe in it is much easier for others to attack your arguments.

[blackshoe]

Well if the central government wastes less money/time and increases quality over free markets, this sounds like a big plus.

When has that ever happened?

[jtfanclub]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I would greatly prefer to live in a country that has health care, period.

 

I went in an ambulance once for a vasovagal. Two miles, an IV drip, nothing exciting. A thousand bucks.

 

So I complain about it. They say the reason that it's so high is because so many people get an ambulance call and then can't afford to pay it. So it costs something like triple what it should, and then of course more people can't afford to pay it. So they charge even more, and eventually they go out of business. Rural hospitals are shutting down.

 

Almost everybody agrees that ambulance services shouldn't be dependent upon ability to pay (for one thing, it can be impossible to tell who has the ability to pay). But you can't force hospitals or ambulance companies to eat it, because then the hospital loses a lot of money, especially thanks to HMOs. While I don't think that all medical care needs to be part of a national health care system, I don't think that immediate trauma care can be based on ability to pay. I also think minimal urgent care is probably worth having as part of a national health care system, if only because it tends to prevent infectious diseases from getting a firm grip.

 

But the expensive stuff, like cancer, I don't have a problem with that being your choice. If your idea of health care is getting the Old Yeller treatment if something goes malignant, I guess I don't have a problem with it.

[DrTodd13]

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

A nation can define health care as the right of its citizens whenever it chooses to do so. It is certainly advantageous to eliminate pockets of disease that can spread to the general population. And it is hard to justify denying health care to children, who had no say in choosing parents who do not own health insurance.

How about we sterilize parents who can't afford health insurance for their kids. That also solves the problem.

[DrTodd13]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

If you want everyone to have health care then you buy it for everyone personally. What you are saying is that you want to live in a country with systematic theft so that you can feel good about people having health care.

 

A right could be said to be something that is wrong to violate even if everyone on earth thought it was ok to violate. A privilege is something that is bestowed upon others by some group. I think these days most people don't believe in any objective morality but strangely they still claim to believe in right and wrong. The masses decide that something is right or wrong with ultimately no reason for that decision.

[han]

What you are saying is that you want to live in a country with systematic theft so that you can feel good about people having health care.

We disagree about the meaning of some words but I think we understand eachother.

[luke warm]

I read a post of Luke Warm who explained that you are not the crazy village moron I always took you for. No, instead it is you who understands these topics much better than us, and by your nonsensical questions and sarcasm you keep us on our toes and stimulate our brain cells.

 

Well, I don't agree. It is easy to ridicule the opinions of others, and even easier to ridicule the thought processes of the American voter. Much harder is it to say what you actually think yourself. After all, once you argue for something you actually believe in it is much easier for others to attack your arguments.

han, do you disagree with him that before we embark upon some nat'l health plan we (the american people) should know what it will cost us, individually? do you disagree with him when he says we shouldn't merely trust a president or a congress when they say, "this is the right thing to do regardless of the cost - trust us"? he likens that to the congress' votes on viet nam and iraq, do you agree with this?

 

that's all he's saying, but i have a bet with myself that i already know your answer... it will be "no" ... period

[jdonn]

Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

You choose to live in the United States...

 

By doing so, you are consenting to participating in the prevailing social contract and pay taxes.

I consent to something by my mere existence? To refuse to consent I have to kill myself? Where would you have me live where I'm not given this choice? Good logic there.

I couldn't care less where you live...

 

Wander off into the woods of Pacific North West... Build yourself a compound and start shooting at the revenue man... Give Waziristan a try. (It seems to be working well for Osama bin Laden. I'm sure you can escape the evil collectivist central government)

 

Even though you were born here in the United States, there is no reason that you need to stay. You always have the option to leave.

 

You choose to stay. You recognize that the benefits of civilized society out weigh the joys of living in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region... And in doing so, you are accepting the social contract that governs life in these United States with all associated rights and responsibilities.

I am curious as to why this post was never replied to.

[Aberlour10]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I agree.

 

Let's take Germany for example, the avarage employee pays about 7% of his monthly income for health insurance, if he/she does not sign it by private company.

( the rate = about 14%, the half of it pays the employer)

I think, its not so much if we know, that this insurance included health service for his wife and children.

Unemployed people have the same services.(paid by goverment)

[DrTodd13]

Because I didn't see it. :)

 

I agree an advanced civilized society has many benefits. What I reject is that civilization is equivalent to government. I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me. Just because I prefer civilization with government to lack of civilization with no government does not mean that I lose my right to lobby for what I think would be a better system. It's like a guy given a choice between getting beaten with a tire iron or a baseball bat and then told to stop complaining during the beating because he was given his choice of form of torture.

[helene_t]

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable. jtfanclub's example with the ambulance shows that there must be scope for reducing prices. Another option could be to get rid of the medical malpractice lawsuits that make physicians' salaries so high because they need to be able to pay for their malpractice-lawsuit insurances.

[jdonn]

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable.

Barack Obama claims that as the basic tenet of his health plan, reducing costs to make it more affordable. Hillary Clinton also claims that as a major component of her plan, although to me it seems more like a response to when Obama says it than because it's actually her focus. That is just my opinion, but regardless of what I think at least they are aware that reducing cost would be an important step and something the public favors. Whether anyone in particular believes that either one of them can or intend to do so is a different issue of course.

[jdonn]

I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me.

There is no civilization in existance without government? Hmmm I wonder if we have stumbled upon a correlation there. Nahhhh

 

It's like a guy given a choice between getting beaten with a tire iron or a baseball bat and then told to stop complaining during the beating because he was given his choice of form of torture.

Well there are hundreds of countries. I think it might be a nice idea to simply be thankful that there are hundreds of other worse things you could be beaten with, but you have been able to exercise the choice not to be.

(By "worse" I don't mean other countries are worse, just that you must consider them worse options given that you choose to live here.)

[finally17]

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable.

Barack Obama claims that as the basic tenet of his health plan, reducing costs to make it more affordable. Hillary Clinton also claims that as a major component of her plan, although to me it seems more like a response to when Obama says it than because it's actually her focus. That is just my opinion, but regardless of what I think at least they are aware that reducing cost would be an important step and something the public favors. Whether anyone in particular believes that either one of them can or intend to do so is a different issue of course.

Having read "The Audacity of Hope" my guess is that Obama has no real clue how to effect anything, nor does he intend to do so. My conclusion from reading the book and seeing his record so far (including what is said about him by Beltway folks) is that he's all show and little substance. Good at appearing to be "all things to all people."

[finally17]

First off, I said "SEEM TO." That means "this is my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it is not clear and that others will have valid disagreement.

Yes, and I've disagreed. So?

 

Secondly, let me explain why they SEEM TO: because of the word FIRST, which you completely ignored.

 

Making unfounded assumptions will not lead you to the right conclusion, grasshopper. The fact I didn't mention it doesn't mean I ignored it.

 

If the idea that harm is bad takes primacy, is most important, more significant than anything else, then INACTION when you can help is essentially harm, and is therefore as bad as active harm. But all that is just my interpretation.

 

Yes. Again we disagree. That's life.

I'm 100% fine with disagreement. The problem is that you state your opinions and interpretations as though they are fact, not interpretation.

 

As for ignoring the word first, google "define ignore." Here, let me do it for you: definition of ignore. Note the very first return. It says "refuse to acknowledge; "She cut him dead at the meeting." You most certainly did ignore the word first. You remarked on every part of the statement except that one particular word.

 

But go ahead and disagree all you want. Just don't state your opinion-based disagreements as fact. Then, if I respond, I'll say "I disagree," instead of spending so much time validating my opinion.

[finally17]

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual.  One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount.  If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

I don't think that's todd's point. He seems pretty clearly stuck on very Randian, objectivist views...and Rand couldn't stand uncompensated service to anyone.

 

But of course you can't coerce it. The fact that coercion of service constitutes slavery does not mean that the service isn't a moral good. Service being my obligation is not remotely similar to slavery.

[finally17]

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I love you han.

I will take this moment to agree with jdonn, and probably bow out of this discussion.

 

Han's post is full of win.

[DrTodd13]

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual.  One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount.  If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

I don't think that's todd's point. He seems pretty clearly stuck on very Randian, objectivist views...and Rand couldn't stand uncompensated service to anyone.

 

But of course you can't coerce it. The fact that coercion of service constitutes slavery does not mean that the service isn't a moral good. Service being my obligation is not remotely similar to slavery.

I'm not an Objectivist. Just because I may agree with them on one particular issue does not mean I buy the whole hog. From what I know of Rand, I think she would say that even voluntary altruism was wrong. I don't believe that. I think that service is a moral good but it loses it's moral goodness when it is forced, either by the person doing it or by the people doing the forcing.

[blackshoe]

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable. jtfanclub's example with the ambulance shows that there must be scope for reducing prices. Another option could be to get rid of the medical malpractice lawsuits that make physicians' salaries so high because they need to be able to pay for their malpractice-lawsuit insurances.

About 25 years ago or so, I discovered that my father's annual medical malpractice insurance premium (he was a cardiologist) was nearly twice my annual income. Definitely something wrong there, imo.

[Winstonm]

I discovered that my father's annual medical malpractice insurance premium (he was a cardiologist) was nearly twice my annual income.  Definitely something wrong there, imo.

 

No, it's when your 2-day hospital bill is 2 times your annual income that you have the problem - sure glad Congress tightened the banruptcy laws to ensure the "pound of flesh" can't be avoided.

[hrothgar]

Because I didn't see it. :)

 

I agree an advanced civilized society has many benefits. What I reject is that civilization is equivalent to government. I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me. Just because I prefer civilization with government to lack of civilization with no government does not mean that I lose my right to lobby for what I think would be a better system.

Hi Todd:

 

I have no issue if you want lobby in favor of some idealised theocratic anarchist collective or whatever your pipe dream d'jour might be...

 

However, I do dispute the validity of some of your claims: In particular, I seem to recall that you've made a number of statements suggesting that the government doesn't have the right to punish you if for refusing to pay your taxes.

 

I am suggesting that your decision to participate in civilized society here the United States waives certain rights that might otherwise exist in the State of Nature. The act of enjoying the benefits of civilized society requires that you assume a set of responsibilities as well.

[han]

han, do you disagree with him that before we embark upon some nat'l health plan we (the american people) should know what it will cost us, individually? do you disagree with him when he says we shouldn't merely trust a president or a congress when they say, "this is the right thing to do regardless of the cost - trust us"? he likens that to the congress' votes on viet nam and iraq, do you agree with this?

 

that's all he's saying, but i have a bet with myself that i already know your answer... it will be "no" ... period

I have no idea if I disagree with him or not, because as usual, I have no idea what mike777 thinks. My impression is that mike777 will say anything to make the democrats look bad. Now, I don't trust any of these democrats either, but I appreciate that at least it seems like they will make a serious effort to improve the situation of health benefits in the US.

 

I don't think that is like Iraq at all. The first time we voted for Bush (well, I didn't of course, I am not a citizen and wouldn't have voted for him if I was), his campaign didn't have a hint of a suggestion of a plan to go to war. On the contrary.

 

This is not similar to Iraq for two more reasons. First, the motivations for the national health plan are out on the table. At least I have not heard any conspiracy theories about oil is involved this time.

 

Second, and more importantly, the power of the president to push through social issues is much more limited than the power of the president to make defensive decisions in times of war (well, we both know that the war on terror was a made up term, but it is hard to see how a president could pull off such a trick in the case of the national health plan).

 

What I am saying is that once one of these democratic candidates is elected, they will have to come up with a very good and detailed plan to get it through congress, unlike the attack on Iraq. Other presidents who attempted to improve the health plan have failed miserably. Presidents who tried to convince congress to attack other countries have been quite succesful in the last 50 years or so.

 

But yes, it would be better if they had more detailed plans, I agree. I don't know if that's feasible given how complicated the issue is, maybe it is. As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

 

period

[helene_t]

Second, and more importantly, the power of the president to push through social issues is much more limited than the power of the president to make defensive decisions in times of war [...]

But yes, it would be better if they had more detailed plans, I agree. I don't know if that's feasible given how complicated the issue is, maybe it is.

It may be feasible but it would probably be a waste of time to make such a plan for the purpose of the election campaign since the plan would have to be negotiated with congress, so whatever the president "promised" during the campaign would be modified before passing.

 

This is the way it works and the way it should work. If there were a detailed plan and it was simply a question of yes or no, there should just be a referendum about it. No reason (in that hypothetical case) to make it an issue for a presidential and/or congress election.

 

As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

That makes sense.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, The New Republic (www.tnr.com) has sponsored a number of debates about Health Care over the past few years. I've always felt that these provided some of the best informed discussions on this topic.

 

You can probably find these archived on the site. I might try to find some information over the course of the weekend.

[finally17]

This is the way it works and the way it should work. If there were a detailed plan and it was simply a question of yes or no, there should just be a referendum about it. No reason (in that hypothetical case) to make it an issue for a presidential and/or congress election.

 

As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

That makes sense.

The US does not have referenda for Federal situations. Ever. Our Federal laws are written and passed by Congress (ok, presented and passed, not always written), okayed by the President, and if challenged, determined Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court. The people's only say is in whom to elect for these positions. That's "representative democracy" for you.

 

Some states, such as Illinois, the one I live in, do not even have a state referendum system (others do, I am not certain how common this is).

 

Unless you mean by "referendum" something other than how it is used in the US (to my understanding).