SiCKo by Micheal Moore

[Guard Dog]

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

And that sums it up well. Either be socialist or don't. If you try to be both all you get is a bloody mess. The US does not practice planned economics in any other endeavor, it makes no sense to do it here.

[taks]

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.

yeah, our bureaucracy is large enough as it is, dabbling in many things that should be prohibited. if a state wants to provide health care, and someone doesn't want to be a part of that, that someone can always move. that was the intent of having separate states, btw. if all the states agree, then that person is SOL.

 

btw, this is one of the ways that the federal government "cheats" on its constitutional powers. the drinking age is a prime example. the fed threatened (blackmailed, essentially) to withhold highway funds for the states unless they agreed to raise the age to 21. this is really a breach of the intent of the constitution.

 

taks

[Tale]

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.

You're just spouting rhetoric. I defy you to cite specific parts of the Constitution (as it exists today, amended) along with how they specifically are not suitable for a country of this size. To support this argument you'll need genuine examples that are more than single anecdotes.

 

I present you with this challenge because I sincerely doubt you have any clue what you're talking about. If you prove me wrong, it'll be egg on my face.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Tale

[WITHTEETH]

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

I agree, and thats why having a small government is efficient, so its harder to cheat, and presumably MUCH easier to find the problems.

 

The biggest problem i think we have right now is checks and balances because it doesn't work correctly right now. Presidents got the Attorney general his job; Vice president is the head of legislation; Bush recommended Judge Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. So the executive branch has power in all 3. Checks and balances turns into pointing fingers and denying.

Edited June 29, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

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.

We had a great thread over on libertypost.org a few years ago about that very subject. Everyone agreed if we did that the country would break up into 3-4 pieces because it is so culturally disparate now. I tend to believe it would be four new countries that emerge from that. Maryland to Illinois and all of New England would be one, Washington and Oregon would be another. California, parts of Arizona and New Mexico would be a third, the South, Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states would be the fourth. There is no way in the world you would get all 50 states to ratify the same Constitution now. What New York will want, Kansas will not.

 

I'd rather we did not do that, and you would be crazy to think we would be better off if that actually did happen.

[Guard Dog]

I agree, and thats why having a small government is efficient, so its harder to cheat, and presumably MUCH easier to find the problems.

 

The biggest problem i think we have right now is checks and balances because it doesn't work correctly right now. Presidents got the Attorney general his job; Vice president is the head of legislation; Bush recommended Judge Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. So the executive branch has power in all 3. Checks and balances turns into pointing fingers and denying.

 

Teeth, I'm getting whiplash here. You want a smaller government, but you want it to run health care? Sand said the same thing. That is a contradiction. Anyway, the attorney General has ALWAYS been a part of the President's cabinet. The President has ALWAYS recommended Supreme Court judges. The Constitution charges him to do so with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is why we have a confirmation process. I wanted to vomit when Clinton nominated an ACLU lawyer to the SCOTUS but I know he had every right to pick who he wanted. Not sure what you beef is here.

[taks]

The biggest problem i think we have right now is checks and balances because it doesn't work correctly right now. Presidents got the Attorney general his job; Vice president is the head of legislation; Bush recommended Judge Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. So the executive branch has power in all 3.

uh, the veep isn't really "in charge" of the legislation. he only has a vote if a bill is tied. even with his vote, the dems still have a majority right now, as a result, cheney has zero power.

 

checks and balances were not designed to counter party differences, though people often assume that is the case. bush also doesn't have any control over alito nor roberts, or the supreme court in general, since they are appointed for life once approved (that's precisely why it is a life appointment). keep in mind, reagan appointed kennedy and he's been anything but conservative.

 

i agree, however, a smaller government is naturally more efficient. adding a $1.7T bureaucracy to the mix will only make the current situation worse.

 

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.

We had a great thread over on libertypost.org a few years ago about that very subject. Everyone agreed if we did that the country would break up into 3-4 pieces because it is so culturally disparate now. I tend to believe it would be four new countries that emerge from that. Maryland to Illinois and all of New England would be one, Washington and Oregon would be another. California, parts of Arizona and New Mexico would be a third, the South, Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states would be the fourth. There is no way in the world you would get all 50 states to ratify the same Constitution now. What New York will want, Kansas will not.

 

I'd rather we did not do that, and you would be crazy to think we would be better off if that actually did happen.

 

I think it might be beter over all. A bunch of smaller nations, with more efficient governments... It could work.

[taks]

Anyway, the attorney General has ALWAYS been a part of the President's cabinet.

this is why i don't understand congressional meddling here. presidential appointments serve at the president's pleasure. he needs no reason to remove any (i'm not sure he can actually "fire" the AG, but he can ask for his resignation). given that the fired attorneys all worked for the attorney general, that extension holds. i'd imagine if this went to the supreme court, congress would be told to butt out. that a similar situation occurred under clinton seems to be lost to history as well.

 

I'd rather we did not do that, and you would be crazy to think we would be better off if that actually did happen.

it would require an unlimited constitutional convention, and 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. not possible by any stretch of the imagination.

 

taks

[WITHTEETH]

The biggest problem i think we have right now is checks and balances because it doesn't work correctly right now. Presidents got the Attorney general his job; Vice president is the head of legislation; Bush recommended Judge Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. So the executive branch has power in all 3.

uh, the veep isn't really "in charge" of the legislation. he only has a vote if a bill is tied. even with his vote, the dems still have a majority right now, as a result, cheney has zero power.

 

checks and balances were not designed to counter party differences, though people often assume that is the case. bush also doesn't have any control over alito nor roberts, or the supreme court in general, since they are appointed for life once approved (that's precisely why it is a life appointment). keep in mind, reagan appointed kennedy and he's been anything but conservative.

Wasn't clear on the Vice P but I know what Checks and balances are for.

[WITHTEETH]

Never the less people need health care, and there not getting it due to the current system. Politicians are being payed off, Prescriptions are through the roof, people are getting dumped off, poor choices are being made, and 50million do not even have health care, this is all mostly due to greed.

 

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

 

Pros and cons of a universal health care are

 

Pros

-Everyone gets health care(care and prescriptions), granted taxes are paying for it.

-Health will be the main issue, not profit, more preventative maintenance done.

-Less bankruptcies

 

cons

-Pay with taxes; The people who make more will have to pay for the people who make less

Government might also screw it up like privatized is too

-speculation: health care quality might decline

-US privatized medical corporations testing for new medicines will decline.

 

Please feel free to critique this all you want, I would like the best pros and cons list, and other suggestions possible to make the most informed decision.

 

EDIT: Medical bills are the number one cause for bankruptcy in the US.

Edited June 30, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

Never the less people need health care, and there not getting it due to the current system. Politicians are being payed off, Prescriptions are through the roof, people are getting dumped off, poor choices are being made, and 50million do not even have health care, this is all mostly due to greed.

 

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

 

Pros and cons of a universal health care are

 

Pros

-Everyone gets health care(care and prescriptions), granted taxes are paying for it.

-Health will be the main issue, not profit, more preventative maintenance done.

-Less bankruptcies

 

cons

-Pay with taxes; The people who make more will have to pay for the people who make less

Government might also screw it up like privatized is too

-speculation: health care quality might decline

-US privatized medical corporations testing for new medicines will decline.

 

Please feel free to critique this all you want, I would like the best pros and cons list, and other suggestions possible to make the most informed decision.

 

EDIT: Medical bills are the number one cause for bankruptcy in the US.

Con: The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do it. It's just that simple.

[Calax]

Never the less people need health care, and there not getting it due to the current system. Politicians are being payed off, Prescriptions are through the roof, people are getting dumped off, poor choices are being made, and 50million do not even have health care, this is all mostly due to greed.

 

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

 

Pros and cons of a universal health care are

 

Pros

-Everyone gets health care(care and prescriptions), granted taxes are paying for it.

-Health will be the main issue, not profit, more preventative maintenance done.

 

cons

-Pay with taxes; The people who make more will have to pay for the people who make less

Government might also screw it up like privatized is too

-speculation: health care quality might decline

-US privatized medical corporations testing for new medicines will decline.

 

Please feel free to critique this all you want, I would like the best pros and cons list, and other suggestions possible to make the most informed decision.

my guess is that the last of your cons would happen quite quickly unless the government was able to do most of the paying for doctors. However one of the things I think we'd also see if the government were to take over would be that some doctors would get paid less. this might lead to a few doctors doing less... moral things. While this is fictitious the example that I'm going to use is probably happening somewhere in America:

 

There is a Law and Order episode that stems from the death of the chairwoman of a hospitals board. The reason being that the shooters sister (shooter was 17) had AIDS. The shooter believed that the doctor treating her killed her. As they follow the sisters life and treatment over the last years, they find that the girl was being used (without anyone's permission) as a guinea pig by her doctor for AIDS treatments. As they went through all of the doctors patients they learned several things, That each of his patients was on a drug ****tail that contained one more drug than was legal/ethical. and that each ****tail was incredibly different. It turns out the doctor had AIDS himself (which led to him becoming the AIDS man at the clinic) and he was using the children that he treated to try and find a cure for himself. And while it seemed fairly obvious the girl could have lived much longer with a less... extreme treatment the doctor was almost unfettered in the ability to give her what ever he wanted because he's the doctor and neither the girl or the person taking care of her are not. (thus the girl was taken away from a caretaker because the girl was going through HORRIBLE bouts of sickness when the drugs were in her system, but when they left she felt much better.)

 

I suppose my ultimate thought on the privatization of our medical system is that what rules are there to bar something like the previous (fictitious) example from happening? I mean, unless your a doctor getting treatment from another doctor in your field of medicine you probably won't be able to figure out if the treatment your doctor is giving you is actually good for you or if he's making a shot in the dark because your terminal illness is similar to what he has and he's trying to find the cure.

 

...

 

I know I'm not the most coherent person (thank you ADD for giving me an extremely tangential brain), but I hope I got my point across.

 

Con: The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do it. It's just that simple.

I was unaware that the constitution or any of it's amendments make ANY mention of health care other than the fact that humanity has a natural right to live, which the HMOs seem to be trying to deny unless it's completely unavoidable.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Calax

[WITHTEETH]

Did you guys know Franklin Roosevelt Proposed a second bill of rights that included with many other things: Universal health care. It actually sounded much like France's system. But now that the greatest generation is mostly gone now, we lost that unity the United States had. We were still headed in the Universal health care direction until Nixon got in office though.

 

CLICK HERE!!Wiki link

Edited June 30, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[WITHTEETH]

Never the less people need health care, and there not getting it due to the current system. Politicians are being payed off, Prescriptions are through the roof, people are getting dumped off, poor choices are being made, and 50million do not even have health care, this is all mostly due to greed.

 

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

 

Pros and cons of a universal health care are

 

Pros

-Everyone gets health care(care and prescriptions), granted taxes are paying for it.

-Health will be the main issue, not profit, more preventative maintenance done.

-Less bankruptcies

 

cons

-Pay with taxes; The people who make more will have to pay for the people who make less

Government might also screw it up like privatized is too

-speculation: health care quality might decline

-US privatized medical corporations testing for new medicines will decline.

 

Please feel free to critique this all you want, I would like the best pros and cons list, and other suggestions possible to make the most informed decision.

 

EDIT: Medical bills are the number one cause for bankruptcy in the US.

Con: The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do it. It's just that simple.

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

[Tale]

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

States choosing on their own to do it.

[Guard Dog]

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

Individual State run health care. As I posted earlier. If the State of Washington desides to subsidize health care for it's citizens, then I applaud them for it. I'm not opposed to government run health care. I AM opposed to FEDERAL Government run health care.

 

@Calax, you are correct. The words "health care" do not appear in the Constitution. Therefore the 10th Amendment forbids the Federal Government from involving itself in it. At the same time it empowers the State Governments to pursue it if their voters approve.

[Sand]

Con: The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do it. It's just that simple.

 

Then we change the Constitution.

[Sand]

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

States choosing on their own to do it.

States, more often than not, just do not have the resources. The Federal Government does.

[Spider]

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.

 

Do you have any numbers to back this up? Because I know there is a lot of drug research being done in Sweden as well. Nowhere near as much as there is in the US, but given that you have 300 million citizens and we have 9, I am not sure how much the ratio differ.

 

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

based on what, the WHO assessment?

 

Sorry, I linked to my source in my first post. Here it is again:

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2005/04/heal...part-i-how.html

 

It's a series of blog posts that sums up OECD Health Data from 2004. It's possible things have changed a little since those posts were made in 2005, but I don't think so.

 

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.

 

There aren't fewer doctors, there just aren't more. But those are the statistics used worldwide to measure the quality of healthcare in any given country. A few years difference in life expectancy is a big deal in these regards, but that specific statistic wasn't the worst one for the US. It even beat some countries it compared to on those charts (but it was still low). The children's mortality rate is to me the most alarming one. A 6.8% mortality rate among infants is considerably higher than the closest country in the comparison, which is the UK at 5.5%. And it's twice as much as in countries like Japan (3.1%), Spain (3.5%) and Sweden (3.7%).

 

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

 

I am not so sure. New drugs coming out of the US are very expensive due to the profit searching nature of the companies that produced them. The high price of medication is one of the biggest problems when it comes to the aids epidemic in Africa and it's why those countries are ignoring international treaties and made copies themselves. They simply couldn't afford the price the corporations were asking. I think in a recent WTO (a year or so back) this was recognized as a big problem and those countries are now allowed to ignore patents to a degree. Yes, it is good that the research is being done, but when the people who need the medication the most simply just can't afford it, something is clearly wrong.

 

But maybe you're right, maybe socializing the US health care system would increases costs for health care across the globe. But wouldn't that be a good thing for the US?

 

Then again, I am not advocating a socialized system in the US. I am just recognizing that there is currently a problem and that the current system is heavily flawed. The best suggestion I've seen in this thread is to leave it to each state how they want to do with their health care. Because having your federal government control it would lead to a lot of red tape. A more decentralized approach would probably lead to better results (regardless of what system was implemented).

[Guard Dog]

Con: The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to do it. It's just that simple.

 

Then we change the Constitution.

But then you would have to move. Popular thinking would put Iowa in the South-Midwest bloc in post break up america. How could you ever leave Iowa behind.

[Gorgon]

Did you guys know Franklin Roosevelt Proposed a second bill of rights that included with many other things: Universal health care. It actually sounded much like France's system. But now that the greatest generation is mostly gone now, we lost that unity the United States had. We were still headed in the Universal health care direction until Nixon got in office though.

 

CLICK HERE!!Wiki link

The progressive area lost wind in the US, mores the pity, whereas in Europe the experience of hardship during the great depression and later WW2 would lead to the fornation of the modern wellfare state. With the war experience came a sense of unity and people were used to an extreme level of government control, so the thinking was, if we can make an effort to win and overcome a world war why not spend some if that level of effort in improving society. In the US that sense of lifting the burden in unity vanished with the post war boom.

 

Whats amazing is that it became a broad political consensus for decades on that society should change fundamentally and provide a wide range of services for everyone. Now, despite the problems of coupling a high level of redistribution with globalisation, most of us remain fiercely proud of the European model compared to the rest of the world.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

Did you guys know Franklin Roosevelt Proposed a second bill of rights that included with many other things: Universal health care. It actually sounded much like France's system. But now that the greatest generation is mostly gone now, we lost that unity the United States had. We were still headed in the Universal health care direction until Nixon got in office though.

 

CLICK HERE!!Wiki link

The progressive area lost wind in the US, mores the pity, whereas in Europe the experience of hardship during the great depression and later WW2 would lead to the fornation of the modern wellfare state. With the war experience came a sense of unity and people were used to an extreme level of government control, so the thinking was, if we can make an effort to win and overcome a world war why not spend some if that level of effort in improving society. In the US that sense of lifting the burden in unity vanished with the post war boom.

 

Whats amazing is that it became a broad political consensus for decades on that society should change fundamentally and provide a wide range of services for everyone. Now, despite the problems of coupling a high level of redistribution with globalisation, most of us remain fiercely proud of the European model compared to the rest of the world.

 

 

I think you've got something there. I do think that ww1 was a watershed for British society, because in the trenches you had officers (who were upper and middle class) living alongside and being told to be responsible for their men. It formed a new bond of respect and care.

[WITHTEETH]

So what are the other options the US has other then the Universal then?

Individual State run health care. As I posted earlier. If the State of Washington desides to subsidize health care for it's citizens, then I applaud them for it. I'm not opposed to government run health care. I AM opposed to FEDERAL Government run health care.

 

@Calax, you are correct. The words "health care" do not appear in the Constitution. Therefore the 10th Amendment forbids the Federal Government from involving itself in it. At the same time it empowers the State Governments to pursue it if their voters approve.

The states run our school system too, and the federal has certain requirements that we have to meet for our education to keep getting the schools funded. I would be fine with it, it can work just fine. Why can't that be called universal health care? There obviously would be a general consensus on how it should be ran (if it came to be at all.)

 

Does it really take a war (like ww2) to recognize we are all in this together, so we should work together?

[Calax]

@Calax, you are correct. The words "health care" do not appear in the Constitution. Therefore the 10th Amendment forbids the Federal Government from involving itself in it. At the same time it empowers the State Governments to pursue it if their voters approve.

Except that there are easy ways around that, for example with holding federal funding from a state until it has healthcare for all. Admittedly it's a work around that causes states to handle most of the red tape but the federal government could do the carrot and the stick method by saying "you can't have funding unless you give out healthcare to your citizens, however if you do give out health care to your citizens we'll give you the money to pay for it."