SiCKo by Micheal Moore

[Sand]

Well, they way I see what Guard Dog wants is an "unfettered" capitialistic model, which means only those with the money to pay will get the healthcare. Those who live at and below the poverty line will get nothing because they wouldn't be able to afford the healthcare nor the insurance coverage. Sorry, Guard Dog, but your model will only work for the upper middle class and richer leaving every one else without midical care. I don't see how it can be any other way.

[Tale]

Well, they way I see what Guard Dog wants is an "unfettered" capitialistic model, which means only those with the money to pay will get the healthcare. Those who live at and below the poverty line will get nothing because they wouldn't be able to afford the healthcare nor the insurance coverage. Sorry, Guard Dog, but your model will only work for the upper middle class and richer leaving every one else without midical care. I don't see how it can be any other way.

The way I see it Guard Dog is closer to actually having a basis for his reasoning that is more valid than rabid distrust and paranoia.

 

Or to put it another way:

 

Well, they way I see what Sand wants is a socialist model, which means that the government will own the healthcare system. Those who want healthcare will have to deal with ridiculous bureacracy and fill out 2 billion sheets of paperwork for a dental appointment. Sorry, Sand, but your model will only work for politicians leaving every one else without midical care. I don't see how it can be any other way.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Tale

[Sand]

If using Canada or the socialist models in some European countries I say that their socialist models work better than our capitalistic model.

[Walsingham]

I'd like to pose a slightly curveball question: Given that America has the largest number of practicing Christians of any nation on Earth, how does that square with seeing someone who is sick and passing by?

[Tale]

If using Canada or the socialist models in some European countries I say that their socialist models work better than our capitalistic model.

However, you have no clue how those models would work applied to the US.

[Walsingham]

I was inspired to ask the question by a certain speech by Martin Luther King, Jnr. (It's worth hearing)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agUA-htonQ...ted&search=

 

"...the first question that the Levite asked was, 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

[Tale]

I was inspired to ask the question by a certain speech by Martin Luther King, Jnr. (It's worth hearing)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agUA-htonQ...ted&search=

 

"...the first question that the Levite asked was, 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

I doubt the majority of Christians practice an intellectual Christianity. And what I mean by this is they act as they will, then if they seek justification, they make it themselves as opposed to them taking Christianity and acting thoughtfully according to the doctrine it proscribes.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Tale

[Guard Dog]

I was inspired to ask the question by a certain speech by Martin Luther King, Jnr. (It's worth hearing)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agUA-htonQ...ted&search=

 

"...the first question that the Levite asked was, 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

I'm a Christian and to that I'd say "I'll voluntarily help pay someone's medical bill from my own pocket. Not demand the Federal Government take money away from someone else to pay MY medical bill." But that is just me.

[Guard Dog]

I doubt the majority of Christians practice an intellectual Christianity. And what I mean by this is they act as they will, then if they seek justification, they make it themselves as opposed to them taking Christianity and acting thoughtfully according to the doctrine it proscribes.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with your take on that on Tale. Well put. It is sad but true.

[Xard]

It's not like most people takes "intelligent approach" with matters anyway regardless of religion

Edited June 29, 2007 by Xard

[taks]

Through your teeth even. As I posted earlier, the cost for US healthcare is about 50% higher than most other western countries (On a % of GDP basis).

and i've already posted on part of the reason why this is. we're funding world's research costs and general profit. the companies that provide health care make little, if any, profit on the socialized world outside of the US (in fact, they lose money). US citizens then have to bear the cost of making these companies profitable. in other words, the "cost" in other countries is not the true cost of what is provided. granted, not all of health care/drugs/etc. is created in the US, but we are the only system even close to a free market in this regard.

 

Not only that, it is also currently worse than most other western countries.

based on what, the WHO assessment?

 

There are no more doctors per citizen (although there are more hospital beds), the childrens mortality rate is higher than in other western countries and life expectancy is lower. (all statistics commonly used in economics to measure life quality in a given country, among other factors)

life expectancy is not simply a function of quality of health care. the differences, btw, are only a few years, hardly enough to draw conclusions about health care. we also lead more stressful lives and work longer hours. that there are fewer doctors really doesn't mean anything, either. our doctors also make more money, so the "bar" for hiring them is much higher than most places.

 

This is not to slant the private system, but as it currently works something is clearly wrong. I suppose it's the hybride thing. Either have it fully private or fully government sponsored. But, from what I understand of taks posts, the current mix is clearly not optimal and quite far from it even.

i agree, and i think you see that in my posts. the current hybrid system is terrible, but socializing it can in no way improve things. it will also increase the costs borne by foreign countries more than anyone wants to admit.

 

taks

[taks]

Taks try to share ideas, not hate.

i get tired of people that do not even understand the basic principles of the arguments they're presenting. calax' comment was in no way contributory to what has otherwise been a good discussion. he/she simply wanted to make some politically motivated statement further indicating ignorance of the issues at hand. as i've stated, i've tried to offer "education" on even simple issues to calax, ones that we are _supposed_ to be taught in grade school, yet still we get such ridiculous statements from said poster.

 

why not tell calax to shut up or contribute, rather than make such ill-informed statements?

 

taks

[Gorgon]

I was inspired to ask the question by a certain speech by Martin Luther King, Jnr. (It's worth hearing)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_agUA-htonQ...ted&search=

 

"...the first question that the Levite asked was, 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

I'm a Christian and to that I'd say "I'll voluntarily help pay someone's medical bill from my own pocket. Not demand the Federal Government take money away from someone else to pay MY medical bill." But that is just me.

I guess what us europeans can't get our heads around is that you don't consider medical treatmeant a basic function of society, like schools, a police force and a fire department.

[taks]

I guess what us europeans can't get our heads around is that you don't consider medical treatmeant a basic function of society, like schools, a police force and a fire department.

first, there's a difference between "function of society" and "function of the government." for that matter, police and fire are not functions of the federal government, nor are schools (there are federal mandates regarding these issues, and sometimes even federal funding, but by and large they are provided at the state/local level). second, medical treatment is a function that absolutely can be handled on an individual basis, whereas things like police, fire and, to some extent, schooling, cannot. government was not intended to baby-sit its citizens, nor was it intended to be an insurance company (which is essentially what state-sponsored medical becomes).

 

certainly it makes sense for some things to be handled by the government. roads, general infrastructure, etc. in fact, if it were not for government involvement, we would not have the extensive power grid, communications systems, etc., in place today.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Federal and local doesen't mean very much over here. I guess the Germans with their lander have some inking but for the rest of us government is government is government.

[Sand]

If using Canada or the socialist models in some European countries I say that their socialist models work better than our capitalistic model.

However, you have no clue how those models would work applied to the US.

Nope, but I do know what we have now, the capitalist model, does not work and we need to do something to improve it.

[Tale]

Federal and local doesen't mean very much over here. I guess the Germans with their lander have some inking but for the rest of us government is government is government.

I think one of the big reasons for that difference is that it is 1300 miles to the seat of Federal power from where I am now. Imagine someone in London, England being ruled from Napoli, Italy.

[taks]

there's a clear separation here, though the federal government often behaves as if there isn't. this was intentional. 50 separate studies on democracy.

 

keep in mind, the issue with the US is NOT about whether or not we have health care, it's about whether or not we have health insurance. almost everyone has major care either through insurance, or medicare/medicaid (which is on the order of $250B/year). the latter is for the "poor" and the former is either through your own purchase, or company provided benefits. i'm not sure about the rules anymore, but i don't believe hospitals can refuse life-threatening care, either.

 

by itself, standard major medical is not that expensive, but tacking on coverage for drugs, office visits, etc., can add up to several hundred a month. if you're high risk, as my wife is, there are either indemnity plans, which basically cover big-time issues, or some states have high risk plans. colorado is one of those states. my wife's insurance is $275/month (she's diabetic, btw).

 

the biggest problem arises when someone needs something major that is not immediately life threatening, and any/all of the above resources refuse to provide the necessary care.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Self suficiency is so deeply ingrained in the American way of thinking that it will never happen. It's both their greatest strength and the reason why they will never evolve to solve the glaring problems with health care.

[taks]

Nope, but I do know what we have now, the capitalist model, does not work and we need to do something to improve it.

uh, what makes you think our model is even remotely capitalist? this has been discussed at length, sand. there's waaaaay too much government interference to refer to it that way. certainly it is closer to "free market" than the rest of the world's, but by no means capitalist.

 

taks

[taks]

and the reason why they will never evolve to solve the glaring problems with health care.

it is pretty arrogant to say that providing health care universally is "evolved" over any other method.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Yes, but I can get away with that since I complimented you in the same sentence.

[Guard Dog]

I guess what us Europeans can't get our heads around is that you don't consider medical treatment a basic function of society, like schools, a police force and a fire department.

Just to expand on Taks answer, which is dead on the money correct. The US is different than Europe in a number of ways when it comes to civics structure. In Europe it is much harder to differentiate between national and local governments because in most countries the local government is a branch of the national government. The US has distinct layers of government that are nearly independent of each other. If you take a constructionist view of the constitution (as people like myself do) it really is a union of 50 sovereign and independent States. Now in reality it does not work that way but the responsibilities of each layer are strictly defined and regimented in the constitution. This may sound like semantics but it really is a big deal. This very relationship between state and federal governments was the underlying cause for the American Civil War.

 

Anyway, the part of the Constitution that matters here is the 10th Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.". You have already heard it said without argument that the Constitution forbids the Federal Government from involving itself in health care, or schools, public utilites, stuff like that. The 10th Amendment charges that what the Federal cannot do the States are free to pursue. In fact, the State of Washington has been working on a plan for subsidized medical care for several years. It would not surprise me if it were to appear on a ballot one of these days, and then we'll see what happens.

 

I'm not opposed to the idea per se, but I an VERY opposed to those who want the Federal government to wave it's magic wand and do it for everyone.

[taks]

hehe, i chuckled. certainly it is a subjective statement either way.

 

personally, while i like the idea from a "helping others" standpoint (i'm not nearly as rigid as my hard-line postings indicate), i simply think anything socialist doesn't work.

 

medicare/medicaid is one of the largest sources of fraud on perpetrated on the government coffers, too. that's not necessarily because it is socialist, rather, i think it is because of the hybridized perversion of a system we have. the only way doctors/drug companies can make money is to cheat it, and massive loopholes allow back-door raping as well. the bigger the government service, the more opportunity for such things.

 

taks

[Sand]

And that is why we need a new Constitution. The Constitution is all fine and dandy back in the day of its creation and for a good century or so after but the US has gotten too big for it can properly handle within its confines of its wording. It is time to ditch it and revamp our government from scratch.