Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare

[Trenitay]

I Do not believe CEO's are worth millions of dollars a year.

oh, you are now the arbiter of demand. such arrogance.

 

This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Gorgon]

So you don't think that freeing up 7% of your GDP would be kind of handy?

you're joking, right? do you actually think that going to a public health care system will cut our health care costs (7% is nearly half)? ah, walsh... i am saddened.

 

taks

There must be some numbers available on this. How many people live in the US, what is the income per capita. Compare cost with NHS or equivalent. If one were so inclined one could find out instead of arguing about it.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Gorgon

[Theseus]

My main point as a paraphrased earlier is to balance liberty and equality.

when it's all said and done, this is the fundamental problem with your argument. you believe in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. there is no "balance between libery and equality." the equality of opportunity is liberty, the equality of outcome is tyranny.

 

taks

The equality of opportunity sounds great especially if won wins the genetic lottery and gets born into a rich family and or healthy background. Some can't control that. We are products of nature and nurture and a large part of the nurturing comes from the guidance of the state. Therefore we are products of this government to a limited degree. So some would suggest we owe it to ourselves not to take advantage of our fellow men by not allowing another to take an unfair sum of money without compensation. In other words, tax the super rich, have estate taxes, and find ways for our fellow working man to help his condition. I'm not talking about destroying Wall street, or capping anyone's salary. I'm just looking for reforms so our government does not collapse do to the shift of money towards the already rich.

 

This is getting dangerous is it not? What is our society going to look like if the top CEO's make 70X more then the common working man in 50 years if the trend keeps going like it is?

- Im thinking the middle class with be destroyed, students will be in further debt trying to pay for there expensive professional degrees, manufacturing job salaries will lower, benefits lower, nobody buys anything because they have lower wages, wall street worsens... you see the trend.

 

 

Yes, Im proposing the equality of outcome by a national health care option. and its not tyrannical if its by consent of the populous Tak, I'm not going to take myself down to your level but this is basic Lockean ideas. We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. lives are at stake due private insurers. Thus we have a right, nay a duty to reform this.

 

I believe someone asked for this. -

Edited September 15, 2009 by Theseus

[Hiro Protagonist]

Obviously going by that graph, the U.S. is right and everybody else is wrong.

[taks]

This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

excuse me? explain in words that even a simpleton can understand how my statement would be hypocritical?

 

CEOs are worth what the market will pay. no more, no less. seriously, awesomeness, look up the law of supply and demand*. there is ONE way to satisfy demand in the face of limited supply.

 

taks

 

*i understand you aren't old enough to have had any real experience with economics, either in schoolwork or real life, but if you are going to debate adult topics, you should be expected to have the minimum understanding of the basics these topics require. the law of supply and demand is fundamental to why things cost what they cost and why salaries are what they are.

Edited September 15, 2009 by taks

[taks]

Yes, Im proposing the equality of outcome by a national health care option. and its not tyrannical if its by consent of the populous Tak,

a) my nick is taks, get it right.

b) um, yes, it is tyrannical especially if it is through consent of the people. tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. that's why we are a republic because pure democracy is tyrannical.

 

I'm not going to take myself down to your level but this is basic Lockean ideas.

suit yourself. basic disproved ideas is what they are. such concepts can only work in an ideal society in which people don't have free will (or very tiny societies in which there is more to do than people to do it).

 

We have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

yet you propose sacrificing my liberty for the sake of your happiness.

 

Thus we have a right, nay a duty to reform this.

yeah, you have a right to steal from me? how does that square with liberty in any definition of the word?

 

also, as i have already noted, what we have is not "insurance" by any stretch, nor is it free market. we have a situation in which the insurance companies are propped up, regulated, and forced into partnerships with and by the government. there is no competition due to government interference. insurance companies lobby the government with massive amounts of money. yet here you are proposing that the very same government that is in bed with these so-called thieves be given total control over 17% of our economy. how insane are you? THE GOVERNMENT IS THE REASON THE SYSTEM SUCKS yet you and those like you are arguing they should be completely in charge! unbelievable.

 

I believe someone asked for this. -

sigh... you don't get it. this does not support your claim that our healthcare is more expensive here, it only supports the truth that we spend more on health care. we do - i did not argue this, so your graphic is a strawman. we also do nearly all of the research in the medical industry (particularly for drugs) which results in us paying the costs for everyone else.

 

socialist systems cannot afford the "true cost" of health care - socialized systems ration care to satisfy the law of supply and demand, period. hence, the total expenditures may go down, but by no means are they getting the same amount of care for their dollar. once the last bastion of even remotely free market health care goes under, we will see the effects throughout the world, and more importantly, here in the US.

 

taks

Edited September 15, 2009 by taks

[Trenitay]

This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

excuse me? explain in words that even a simpleton can understand how my statement would be hypocritical?

 

CEOs are worth what the market will pay. no more, no less. seriously, awesomeness, look up the law of supply and demand*. there is ONE way to satisfy demand in the face of limited supply.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. If that's what they are getting paid then there has got to be a reason. I was referring to the arrogance thing. Sorry if that wasn't clear. People in general are arrogant and anyone accusing another of being so is hypocrisy.

 

taks

 

*i understand you aren't old enough to have had any real experience with economics, either in schoolwork

 

Actually I have taken and am taking an economics class.

[Gorgon]

socialist systems cannot afford the "true cost" of health care - socialized systems ration care to satisfy the law of supply and demand, period. hence, the total expenditures may go down, but by no means are they getting the same amount of care for their dollar. once the last bastion of even remotely free market health care goes under, we will see the effects throughout the world, and more importantly, here in the US.

 

 

Voters want to see their taxes go to pay for health care and eduction over everything else, it's an easy sell. Even in a global economic downturn our government had no choice but to offer treatment guarantees in the form of wavers for private hospitals, should capacity be exceeded, even including treatment overseas. If the system proves infective people will not stand for it, it's beautiful really, democracy in action.

 

The overall impression is that the system works quite well and is not sub standard to anything, I dunno maybe excepting the platinum shield with oak leaves and complimentary caviar and spungebaths.

 

Now, do you have any actual experience or evidence of UHC offering poorer quality treatment or is it really just apprehension and suspicion based on your personal conviction about what health care should be like ?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Gorgon

[taks]

People in general are arrogant and anyone accusing another of being so is hypocrisy.

nonsense. his claim is that he knows enough to determine the value of another's labor - that is arrogance. my claim is that nobody knows, and only the market can adjust for that.

 

when someone comes up with a legitimate way for socialist programs to adjust for demand, i will listen. i'd like an original thought, actually, not just the same tired compassion arguments "oh, my, it's the right thing to do" or the crap utopian ideals that so many often spout. not one thing in here cited by theseus is more than the same socialist disproved idea. it cannot work, and will not work. not only is history on my side with this one, but so is theory.

 

Actually I have taken and am taking an economics class.

hopefully it is not keynesian macroeconomics. if so, i'm sorry. he's yet another economist that does not understand the basic concept of demand. so much so that he actually denied the work that earned him a nobel after the depression and horrible economy through the war failed to prove his theories correct. look up stagflation, an economic quagmire of the 70s brought on by keynsian economic theory (and the reason chicagoan* economists became popular till recently: apparently we forgot our previous lessons). in keynes' defense, it is actually difficult to understand what it is that he was actually saying anyway. as one poster i read once said "keynes was not a good expositor of his own views."

 

you'll note, awesomeness, that nobody ever addresses my actual complaints. the closest so far is theseus posting the per capita expenditures in response to me saying our healthcare is not the most expensive (which was a strawman). nobody can address the demand problem - who knows how much something is worth until the market decides? what is a tomato "worth?" it is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. theseus talks about liberty, yet cannot come up with a good argument how forcing me to pay for someone else does not violate my right to liberty. ultimately, he will be forced to redefine liberty, to a notion that defines the state as an arbiter of what is "fair" (or moral), to accomodate his viewpoint. theseus mentions the right to life, yet cannot explain how that translates to the right to force someone else to keep you alive. a right to the pursuit of happiness becomes a right to happiness - yet what about my happiness when the government steals from me to pay for another?

 

socialist ideals are exactly that: ideals that can only be implemented in an ideal, not real, society. as long as there is free will, such a construct will not (and can not) exist. until then, those that believe in socialism, or believe that socialist systems can work, must somehow get over the contradictions necessary for its/their implementation.

 

taks

 

*technically, i subscribe to the austrian school of thought, not milton friedman's chicago school of thought - though there are many similarities, the differences only seem to lie in monetary policy, which is rather huge. this would include, btw, ludwig von mises, murray n. rothbard, and more recently, george reisman.

[taks]

Now, do you have any actual experience or evidence of UHC offering poorer quality treatment or is it really just apprehension and suspicion based on your personal conviction about what health care should be like ?

in that quote i was talking about the amount of care per dollar, gorgon, not quality (which could lead to poorer quality overall, but that's not what i was arguing). please, no more strawmen.

 

rationing is a basic problem of socialized anything. supply is limited and for most, if not all products/services, supply and demand are not equal. the free market adjusts by increasing/decreasing the price to the point that demand is reduced/increased to meet supply. socialized systems do not have such a mechanism. demand for health care services far outweighs supply, and as a result, someone has to decide who gets what care. rationing.

 

notice, very little of what i argue is about my "personal conviction," i.e, my "feelings" about this. it is about what can logically work, and what has actually happened.

 

and, for the record, nearly 50% of the US health care system is already socialized (medicare, medicaid, military/government employee* health care plans). those systems cost far, far more than politicians ever thought they would, so it's not like we don't already have evidence in our own back yards that i'm right about this.

 

taks

 

* 47% was the last i saw, and i'm not sure if the government employees fall into this, though i would be surprised if they didn't.

Edited September 16, 2009 by taks

[Gorgon]

Keynes made sense before Globalization. It's a lot harder to stimulate demand or predict how people are going to spend their money with everything so interconnected. Whats the use of a stimulus package if you are just giving the money away to China.

[Wrath of Dagon]

50% of health dollars are spent at the end of life, so stretch out the wait until the patient dies, there's your 50% saving.

[Humodour]

You have to give them credit - they know how to play American politicians. They contribute their millions to Republicans and Democrats equally, so whoever gets in is on their side.

['GM']

I've read most of the posts in this thread... skipped over pages 8 through 11 I think... and there's been this recurring thought of the borg in my mind. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. It's as though since the rest of the world has been assimilated, then so must the USA. Well I don't wish to be like the rest of the world. I love my country, very dearly. I don't dislike yours at all. I'm glad you like what you have. They say happiness is in wanting what you have, not in having what you want. I have liberty here...it is what I want. I have the freedom to choose. It saddens me that there are those that want to take that away from us. I'd never wish it for any one of you.

 

Redistribution, or whatever it is you call it, well that is just a fancy word for robbery imo. Why is it certain people don't have health insurance? Perhaps one reason is they choose not to. Another reason is some are too happy sucking off the system to get out and get a job of their own so that they can have health insurance. I surely don't see why those who work hard to make a living should shell out for those who choose not to, and don't tell me that this would not be the case because I know it would. Actually, we already pay for them. Is it wrong to think people should do their own part, and quit depending on handouts from those who work hard?

 

Why should the wealthy be hit hardest with taxes? My former employer was a multi-millionaire. He created his own companies with his own hard work, and hiring those he could depend on. None of those people, including myself, would have had a job with him if he wasn't rich. I'm thankful as hell he had the money to provide such jobs for us. If he was taxed as hard as some here think his kind should be, well I don't know how long his companies would've stood up. And then a lot of people would be without a good job.

 

There are charities for just about every conceivable need, want, mission etc. It's been my experience that people are generous of heart. My gosh, those charities work! And no one has been forced to give, not that I'm aware of anyway. But start forcing people, then it is no longer done with love and true human consideration. It breeds resentments.

 

Anyway this is all I'm going to say for now.

[Gorgon]

Where does this idea come from that all rich people are employers. I'd wager a good percentage of them sit around in their fur coats doing nothing, their money in mutual funds producing nothing.

 

Anyway the argument about personal freedom is one I can understand, I don't subscribe to it personally, but it's straightforward at least. The other scare stories about UHC seem to miss the mark by quite a margin for someone who has had experience with it. There can be waiting lists, but guarantees are offered and this is where the private sector picks up the slack to ensure that no one is left without treatment.

[Walsingham]

I'm sorry to hear you feel under attack, Gina. If I may be generous to our position I would suggest that we are merely pointing out that you chaps are been hooned royally, and you deserve better. I like America, and I'm pleased we're allies, but that doesn't mean I ignore your problems, I get stuck into them with gusto, as any friend should.

 

I have two close friends who are in the NHS, one as a nurse, the other as a doctor. There are some reasons why I support it, even when I see people taking the mickey out of the system.

 

1. Emotionally - because I still feel compassion for halfwits. And I am proud that we as a nation have the capacity to absorb their needs

2. Selfishly - because all the evidence I see tells me it's cheaper for me personally even though I could choose to buy my own insurance

3. Selfishly - because I don't need to worry about what happens to me, I have 100% cover and no-one is trying to defraud me of it

4. Socially - You can't work if you are sick or injured. If people are to be expected to work it helps if they can count on this basic enabler

 

 

I regard the current US system as the antithesis of this. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with it. It's common sense (at least until Aristes mounts his counter to these points).

 

To answer your other point I know you people have this notion of right and social justice coming from hard work, but anyone who tells you luck doesn't play a big part is full of poop, IMO. ESPECIALLY if common injury plays a part. That is, after all, why they are called accidents.

[Blarghagh]

I'm not really fit to mingle into this discussion because I am as always surrounded by people far smarter than me on this board, but I do have to say that reading through this thread it bothers me how many people here rationalise not wanting UHC by subtly implying that those who can't afford better insurance are just lazy and should get a job and that they shouldn't have to pay for that.

 

I mean I recognize that there are plenty of reasons to want or not want UHC, but I come from a family of people who worked their butts off but still had to rely on UHC because they simply had no other choice. These implications that people like my dad, who literally busted his back working as a truck mechanic so I could have a good education, are lazy, well, they just quite frankly piss me the hell off.

[Gfted1]

...and that they shouldn't have to pay for that.

 

I fall squarely into this category. Why the hell should my standard of living decrease because I have to support someone elses healthcare?

 

I understand the European pov, you guys dont know the difference. You were born and raised in the support-me-from-the-cradle-to-the-grave mentality. Its your whole life. Its like asking a blind man what a sunset looks like, he doesnt know.

 

Believe me, I too would have loved to roll off my mothers teat and right onto the governments. Spend the next 50-60 year potificating before strolling off to retirement. Im truly jealous, but thats not how it is here and its not my f-ing problem you (not you) dont have insurance.

[Gorgon]

How much do you pay now through your employer. What if it turns out even you would save money by switching to UHC.

 

What if there were practical benefits in servicing a much larger group of people, less administration, fewer million dollar bonuses for the execs, etc.

 

They are just practical advantages though, and obviously not as studly as the American self made and self sufficient way.

[Gfted1]

How much do you pay now through your employer.

 

I pay nothing. 100% of my medical and dental are paid by the company. Although I dont get vision insurance. I suppose someone else should pay for that.

 

What if there were practical benefits in servicing a much larger group of people, less administration, fewer million dollar bonuses for the execs, etc.

 

See, I dont even understand this mentality. Like we have to "stick it to the man" because he makes more then me? What?

 

They are just practical advantages though, and obviously not as studly as the American self made and self sufficient way.

 

*sigh* Maybe some day you will be able to see a pov different from yours. So far, all models Ive seen predict a 13% increase in taxes for all workers to pay for this UHC. Not 13% per family, 13% per person. That equates to a 26% decrease (both my wife and I work) in my families disposable income. I can not absorb a 26% decrease without significant negative consequences to my way of life. Why? So Joe A-Hole can get a free ride? Screw that. It makes me want to stab him in the face myself so at least I can have the satisfaction of seeing my money at work.

[taks]

Believe me, I too would have loved to roll off my mothers teat and right onto the governments. Spend the next 50-60 year potificating before strolling off to retirement. Im truly jealous, but thats not how it is here and its not my f-ing problem you (not you) dont have insurance.

actually, i bet you wouldn't like that. i wouldn't, either.

 

oh, and for the record, even though your employer cuts the check for your health insurance, you're still paying. same with the euroweenies that think they're getting "free" healthcare. there is no such thing as free.

 

taks

[Blarghagh]

Believe me, I too would have loved to roll off my mothers teat and right onto the governments.

See, this right here, this is exactly what I mean. This has nothing to do with point of view. This is just rationalising it to yourself to make it seem like they are somehow lesser people that don't deserve your support. Just makes you look like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.

[Rostere]

So far, all models Ive seen predict a 13% increase in taxes for all workers to pay for this UHC. Not 13% per family, 13% per person. That equates to a 26% decrease (both my wife and I work) in my families disposable income.

 

Oh my god, the maths! My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

[Gfted1]

Believe me, I too would have loved to roll off my mothers teat and right onto the governments.

See, this right here, this is exactly what I mean. This has nothing to do with point of view. This is just rationalising it to yourself to make it seem like they are somehow lesser people that don't deserve your support. Just makes you look like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.

 

 

Im not rationalizing anything. While I dont feel they are "lesser" people, they absolutely do not deserve my forced support at the expence of my family. Period. Go die in a ditch for all I care. With your line of thinking I should also be forced to feed all the homeless too right? Damn whatever negative effects it has on my family right?

 

Give me a good reason why I should suffer an over one-quarter reduction to my families income for someone else.

[Wrath of Dagon]

*sigh* Maybe some day you will be able to see a pov different from yours. So far, all models Ive seen predict a 13% increase in taxes for all workers to pay for this UHC. Not 13% per family, 13% per person. That equates to a 26% decrease (both my wife and I work) in my families disposable income. I can not absorb a 26% decrease without significant negative consequences to my way of life. Why? So Joe A-Hole can get a free ride? Screw that. It makes me want to stab him in the face myself so at least I can have the satisfaction of seeing my money at work.

Your sentiment is correct but your math is wrong. It would still be 13% of your family income, since it's twice as large as what you each make individually.

 

Edit: Btw, to all you Euros, we have public hospitals, I know what they're like, no one who can afford it would be caught dead in one, so don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon