Seriously thoughtful American Health Care

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by krisk

as it sits right now, I personally would not be in favor or any system I have seen thus far outside of the French system. that seems to be a system that is working and working well.

I guess there are efficiency differences between national health systems in various European countries, but I suspect that in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark, it should be at least as good as in France. I once had to visit a (public) hospital in Switzerland and I got the impression that I was in 5* hotel... Well, but that's Switzerland.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by Verencat

All types of medication is far cheaper here, but the medical system in place right now is not large enough to suffice the demand. You go to an emergency and wait twelve hours to be told you need an appointment with a specialist, but that specialist will only see you in two months, and by then, you are either dead or don't care anymore. Even worse, in Québec there was a rule (that was dismissed years ago but is still unofficially applied) saying that patients will mental issues could only be seen in their living area, but since often people having those issues are poor and live in poor neighborhood, the hospitals get overcrowded. In my specific area, the delay is three months to see a psychiatrist. A person with suicidal tendencies needs far less then that to commit an irreparable act.

Anyhow, all this to say that I think a free medical system is a right, but such a system needs to be really well organize to be functional and appealing.

well VC pretty much hit the nail on the head. having lived in WA state for about a dozen years and watching all the Canadians coming over for actually fairly critical care, but like VC said, they couldn't get in without a long wait... well that's a bit scary. also I listened to a report not long ago about a mahority of the critical care pregnancies being sent to the US due to lack of bedspace.

now the drugs.... well yep, they are cheaper in Canada, and as most folks that travel know, the US is like the Church Lady as far as approving stuff with a little more punch than we already have. it's quite common for people to be crossing the border with all sorts of pharmaceuticals

[krisk]

Originally Posted by Kostas

I guess there are efficiency differences between national health systems in various European countries, but I suspect that in Germany, Switzerland or Denmark, it should be at least as good as in France. I once had to visit a (public) hospital in Switzerland and I got the impression that I was in 5* hotel... Well, but that's Switzerland.

the French apparently have it all figured out, soup to nuts and are running an incredibly efficient system.

having lived in Germany on and off for 8 years, I've had occasion as did my son to use local emergency services, and they were very fine... they couldn't wait to turn us over the the Army docs though!

[PKFFW]

For those that keep mentioning other, public health care systems, with long waiting lists, please remember that in each case one does have the choice of buying into private health insurance. By doing so one effectively goes to the head of the line, bypassing the waiting list.

Why should it be any different in the USA?

That way the rich can continue to receive the premium care they enjoy today and the insurance compaines can continue to turn a massive profit just as they do in all these other countries that provide public health care. The difference would be that the middle class, working poor and really poor would have some possibility of receiving decent health care for things other than immediate life threatening emergencies.

Best of both worlds one would think?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Kosst Amojan]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not "a right" in the way that "civil unbiased treatment" is a right, but a right like education and roads are a right... once the state has enough money to support them, everyone is better off if everyone has access to them. Restricting them to the wealthy and elite serves only to maintain unnecessary divisions between "haves" and "have-nots," causing strife and jealousy and anguish.

How is not providing public funding for anything "restricting" and maintaining divisions? As long as everyone is treated equally under the law then whatever advancements they make to their own personal happiness is up to them. Remember that I said I really don't understand the collectivist point of view, you assert that its better if everyone has these services but don't say why? It would be better if I had a million dollars but does that justify me robbing a bank for it?

*Children: The US has an increasing populace that believes children are an expensive hobby, and those who can't afford to bear the full costs of that hobby--financial and emotional--shouldn't have them. There is an incredible callousness towards the children living in poverty or with a single parent, as if they had no inherent right to live, and therefore of course shouldn't be provided comfortable homes, good education, or healthcare.

Even without immigration, the US has a higher birthrate then any EU country. In fact it has the highest birthrate in the industrialized world. Of course we encourage to be reproductively responsible but callous toward those who don't...where did you get that from?

Originally Posted by Kostas

Same applies to education. Is education a human right?
Isn't "free" education provided to everyone in the states?
Though not free, cos' it costs to build schools and pay teachers.
Are taxes taken forcefully by governments = theft? Strange POV.
What taxes serve for if not for this kind of public goods? For bank bailouts??
According to many international reviews and classifications (UN, WEF,...), Sweden is one of the world's most competitive and with best living standard countries, though taxes are perhaps the highest in the world.
There are real scale economies when public money is well managed and spend.

"Same applies to education. Is education a human right?" No. It is provided for free but the US is partially collectivist.

As for taxes=theft...how is that strange? If a thief on the street threatens you harm if you don't give him money thats theft...why is it different when the government does the same? If that thief tells you not to worry, the money is going to feed the homeless, does that make it any less a theft?

As for your comparisons to the UN (why does anyone care about them) and Sweden, again if bank robbing works for me that means its ok for me to do it? The question we're asking ourselves here isn't if it can be done, the reason is should it? I have yet to see someone here bring a reasoned, philosophical argument as to why we should have socialized healthcare.

[Verencat]

Although I do agree with the coexistence of a double standard medical system (PPP-Partenariats Public-Privé in French, big issues in a province that has prouded itself for fifty years with it's government-run institutions), I'd like to specify that private institutions have existed specifically in Québec for not more than three years, and they are still limited in the type of intervention they can perform. So far, they have not relieved public institutions of the enormous number of patients waiting.

As I said: everything lies in planing and organization.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

How is not providing public funding for anything "restricting" and maintaining divisions? As long as everyone is treated equally under the law then whatever advancements they make to their own personal happiness is up to them. Remember that I said I really don't understand the collectivist point of view, you assert that its better if everyone has these services but don't say why? It would be better if I had a million dollars but does that justify me robbing a bank for it?

Surely you are not arguing that everyone is actually treated equally in the USA? Even under the law?

A simple example would be the many cases where black people have been given a far more severe penalty for the same offence than white people have received.

It is all well and good to argue from a "philosophical" view point based on a utopian ideal where everyone is actually treated equally. The reality is far different to this though.

I believe when it comes to the health and welfare of human beings we should deal with reality.

As for giving reasons why, many reasons why have been given throughout the thread. Eg: healthy people are more productive thereby benefiting society more, healthy people cost less in emergency medical care thereby lessening the cost over all to all participants in the health care system, common decency to put the welfare of your comman man above your own hip pocket just to name a few.

Finally, I will ask again, if it is ok for any government(federal, state or local) to provide socialised police, fire brigades, defence forces, education, sanitation etc etc etc then why would it not be ok to provide health care? Or are you arguing that each individual be required to fund their own private services for the above?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Kosst Amojan]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Surely you are not arguing that everyone is actually treated equally in the USA? Even under the law?

What do you mean, even under the law? What I was say is that everyone should be treated the same under the law. And if they aren't it is either a problem with the people or the law, any of which should be corrected.

A simple example would be the many cases where black people have been given a far more severe penalty for the same offence than white people have received.

I don't think I was clear about where I was coming from. That is a picture (below) of me with with the past Libertarian candidate for President Bob Barr (It was summer of last year I believe). Now, I'm not a libertarian; I'm an Objectivist from Southern Louisiana of all places and I have dealt with racism before. The last time was when I was pulled over in Maryland because it was 2am and the cops thought I had a white woman in the car with me (she was a light skinned hispanic). But there was nothing in the law that caused them to do that and mo law isn't going to change whats in their hearts.

It is all well and good to argue from a "philosophical" view point based on a utopian ideal where everyone is actually treated equally. The reality is far different to this though.

I keep pressing the phrase "under the law" and you're still not hearing me. As individuals, we're not equal. I'm smarter then some people, some are smarter then me. I've been healthy my whole life, worst thing I've ever had was strep throat when I was nine. Why should I be forced to pay for other peoples health care? If I do get sick, I have insurance and I can pay the rest or get a loan for it. If someone I care about gets sick, I can help them out IF I WANT TO. Its my life, my money, and it should be my choice.

As for giving reasons why, many reasons why have been given throughout the thread. Eg: healthy people are more productive thereby benefiting society more, healthy people cost less in emergency medical care thereby lessening the cost over all to all participants in the health care system, common decency to put the welfare of your comman man above your own hip pocket just to name a few.

Common decency? And who defines that? Whatever the collectivist say it is? Where I'm from it isn't enforced by the point of a gun. As for healthy people and society, well you're right. Healthy, educated people are better for it. But the way you want to achieve that is by the most immoral way possible, at the point of a gun.

And in case you think I'm kidding (I'm not sure where you're from) in America if you don't pay your taxes then don't attend the inevitable court seizing your assets, men with guns are going to come to your house to take you away and if you resist they may very well shot you.

Finally, I will ask again, if it is ok for any government(federal, state or local) to provide socialised police, fire brigades, defence forces, education, sanitation etc etc etc then why would it not be ok to provide health care? Or are you arguing that each individual be required to fund their own private services for the above?

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And just to shoot down a bad argument I've heard too many time, James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution states the general welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated within the Constitution.

That however is a restriction on the federal government, except for defense and federal police (another story there) all of it is run by the various states. But the only just function of government is protecting the rights of the individual, period.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

What do you mean, even under the law? What I was say is that everyone should be treated the same under the law. And if they aren't it is either a problem with the people or the law, any of which should be corrected.

Ok, agreed everyone should be treated the same under the law.

However, everyone is clearly not treated the same under the law.

Therefore, to argue that "so long as everyone is treated the same under the law then it should be up to the individual to pay for their own health care" is like saying "so long as there are invisible pink elephants in my back yard the government should pay for everyone's health care."

Do you see that if it is not reality then what's the point in arguing that is the way it should be?

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

I don't think I was clear about where I was coming from. That is a picture (below) of me with with the past Libertarian candidate for President Bob Barr (It was summer of last year I believe). Now, I'm not a libertarian; I'm an Objectivist from Southern Louisiana of all places and I have dealt with racism before. The last time was when I was pulled over in Maryland because it was 2am and the cops thought I had a white woman in the car with me (she was a light skinned hispanic). But there was nothing in the law that caused them to do that and mo law isn't going to change whats in their hearts.

Then it would seem clear that you should realise that not everyone is treated equally under the law. Therefore why argue that if everyone were then it would be ok for everyone to pay for their own health care?

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

I keep pressing the phrase "under the law" and you're still not hearing me. As individuals, we're not equal. I'm smarter then some people, some are smarter then me. I've been healthy my whole life, worst thing I've ever had was strep throat when I was nine. Why should I be forced to pay for other peoples health care? If I do get sick, I have insurance and I can pay the rest or get a loan for it. If someone I care about gets sick, I can help them out IF I WANT TO. Its my life, my money, and it should be my choice.

See this is the crux of it. You are ok and you have money to pay for your health care should you get sick. Therefore you shouldn't be "forced to pay for someone elses health care".

What about those others, who are not treated as "equally" as you or others, who can not afford their own health care? Sucks to be them but oh well.

There are socio-economic realities that can not be solved by saying "get off your lazy ass and get a job and pay your own way". It is unfortunate that many in the USA do not wish to recognise or acknowledge this fact.

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

Common decency? And who defines that? Whatever the collectivist say it is? Where I'm from it isn't enforced by the point of a gun. As for healthy people and society, well you're right. Healthy, educated people are better for it. But the way you want to achieve that is by the most immoral way possible, at the point of a gun.

And in case you think I'm kidding (I'm not sure where you're from) in America if you don't pay your taxes then don't attend the inevitable court seizing your assets, men with guns are going to come to your house to take you away and if you resist they may very well shot you.

Ok if you don't think it is "common decency" to want to help your fellow man so be it, I wont argue the point with you.

As for not paying your taxes.......no one will shoot you if you don't pay them. They may shoot you if you get violent when they come to repossess your house but not simply because you haven't paid your taxes.

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And just to shoot down a bad argument I've heard too many time, James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution states the general welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated within the Constitution.

That however is a restriction on the federal government, except for defense and federal police (another story there) all of it is run by the various states. But the only just function of government is protecting the rights of the individual, period.

I get it already, the Federal Government of the USA doesn't have the authority to provide socialised health care.

That is why I asked, if it is ok for any government body to provide any socialised services why then should it not be ok for that same government body to provide health care? Why should health care be different to education? Why should health care be different to a police service or fire brigade? Why should not everyone have to pay for their own personal teachers for their children? Or pay for their own private police service and fire brigade?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Kostas]

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

As for taxes=theft...how is that strange? If a thief on the street threatens you harm if you don't give him money thats theft...why is it different when the government does the same? If that thief tells you not to worry, the money is going to feed the homeless, does that make it any less a theft?

Humans live in societies and taxes are the base for funding collective (arghhh...) needs. Don't know any country without taxes.
Taxes = theft only if the are to fund health systems? What about funding schools? Army, fire department, police, bank bailouts?
I really would like to have a description of how a society could be organized without taxes.

[HarryT]

One fairly obvious solution would seem to be to fund healthcare by cutting the US's massive "defense" spending. Is it really necessary to be able to destroy the planet 20x over? Wouldn't 2 or 3 times be sufficient? The price of a single B1 bomber (approx $2bn) will buy you quite a lot of healthcare!

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One fairly obvious solution would seem to be to fund healthcare by cutting the US's massive "defense" spending. Is it really necessary to be able to destroy the planet 20x over? Wouldn't 2 or 3 times be sufficient? The price of a single B1 bomber (approx $2bn) will buy you quite a lot of healthcare!

that is the last thing we should do... the us defense spending most of the cost it not world distroyers(that is not much use). most of it is abount giving us better weapons and gear so that more of our troops come back home when they go to war. if you look at the numbers it does show. last few wars that we have foght have been low on death.. by war standers. (and our side even more so)

lots of those money go to darpa to make try out mad ideas that some times work.. look at they exoskieltons they are making now. (when that works out we will have walking tanks)

also defense is on of those things everyone says the us govrment should have there hand it.

[ahammer]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

For those that keep mentioning other, public health care systems, with long waiting lists, please remember that in each case one does have the choice of buying into private health insurance. By doing so one effectively goes to the head of the line, bypassing the waiting list.

Why should it be any different in the USA?

That way the rich can continue to receive the premium care they enjoy today and the insurance compaines can continue to turn a massive profit just as they do in all these other countries that provide public health care. The difference would be that the middle class, working poor and really poor would have some possibility of receiving decent health care for things other than immediate life threatening emergencies.

Best of both worlds one would think?

Cheers,
PKFFW

this does not work becuse the people that get privit insureance have to pay two times. meen that less people can aford to get it. this ends up giving you more have not.. not less.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kosst Amojan

I've been healthy my whole life, worst thing I've ever had was strep throat when I was nine. Why should I be forced to pay for other peoples health care? If I do get sick, I have insurance and I can pay the rest or get a loan for it. If someone I care about gets sick, I can help them out IF I WANT TO.

Because their health is of concern to you, and vice versa, unless you live entirely isolated from other human beings (in which case, you don't need to pay taxes at all).

Because the health of others is what provides you with roads to drive on and clients to work for and movies to watch on the weekends. All those people are working to benefit you--you can pay into their health care the same way they pay into your enjoyment and convenience of life.

Yes, they get paid for doing those jobs. But they can't do them at all if they're not healthy, and if they're not paid enough to manage their health (and the health of their children), then those jobs don't get done. That's a big part of why we have strikes, and why epidemics are treated seriously.

There's also an element of basic human compassion involved. Pay-for-yourself healthcare boils down to "poor children die a lot more than rich children." And I find that it's usually Libertarians and the occasional Randite who can throw that off with, "well, tough luck; life isn't fair; I'm not paying for someone else's mistakes."

[Angst]

The problem with "for profit" health care insurance in the US, is that the more you cost the insurance company, the more likely you are to have your policy canceled for administrative reasons. (i.e. pre-existing conditions or you forgot to tell the insurance company you had the flu in 1969).

For people who's insurance payouts are $8,000 or more, (top 5% of users), the coverage cancel rate is 10%. If your medical bills are over $30,000, (top 1% of users), the insurance company is 50% likely to cancel your coverage.

Also, you cannot get medical coverage for pre-existing conditions. If you are pregnant you cannot get medical insurance that will cover your pregnancy.

When I lived in Canada I just accepted the universal coverage. But now I've seen the US system, I would take Canadian coverage any day. The idea that you are covered no matter what happens is enormously comforting.