Jump to content

Americans set to get standardised/universal healthcare


Humodour

Recommended Posts

I don't know what you all give to charity, but I have a lot of strident liberal friends who talk a lot about helping the poor who don't give a dime to charity at all.

 

I give at least 10% of my income.. Couldn't really call myself a diehard socialist democrat if I didn't! :lol:

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want anything to do with the government because government sucks and I hate it. If they want to provide free healthcare for those who can't afford it, then whatever, but stay the **** out of my business.

Edited by Wrath of Dagon

"Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

 

It's funny you should say that, because I just playing with that idea as a counter argument to Europeans about UHC in America. I'm convinced that the vast majority of Europeans wouldn't want anything important to be handled by EU, be it taxes or healthcare. And in many ways I'm sure you feel much the same about your federal government as we do about the EU.. It's there for a reason, but they shouldn't be given too much power.

 

Most of us are pretty sceptical about anything EU proposes that impedes on any of our rights, like the Lisbon treaty.. While we are a lot more acceptive about what our national governments legislates.

Fortune favors the bald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our govt was just in a scandal for overpaying private hospitals who were to take the overflow from the public system, so yes we do worry about what the govt does with our money. Apparently the Germans and the Swedes are much better at managing UHC than us, to the tune of being 10-20% more effective.

Edited by Gorgon

Na na  na na  na na  ...

greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER.

That is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

So would an individual state government, if it wished to, be able to organise universal health care for its own citizens? Have any done so? Would this be more acceptable to the public?

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rather interesting article about the subject.

 

Basically, it is about how easily the democrats shot themselves in the foot in this process. Unbelievable mismanagement and mudslinging, and the losers were of course the taxpayers themselves. I bet Guard Dog would have a field day reading this.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

So would an individual state government, if it wished to, be able to organise universal health care for its own citizens? Have any done so? Would this be more acceptable to the public?

 

I would definately support that, since it would leave accountability to a closer and to a lower level, making it more easy for the taxpayers to verify any fraud or mismanagement. The federal government would simply have legislate the mandate "universal healthcare guaranteed to its citizens" to every state would be enough. Whether if they would adpot the swiss model or the british one would be up to them as long as it was universal.

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Walsh, you jerk, don't call me a lunatic.

 

I was responding to your comments about the insurers being hungry ants. Are grocery chains evil for making a profit? ...And they have even less of a profit margin.

 

Food is even more vital to life than health insurance. Is there a universal food coverage program? There is a food program in most countries to help the people most in need, but it's not the equivalent of UFC.

 

I don't disagree with trying to make sure health care is available to all. However, any person with an emergency will get service. As far as insurance goes, there are folks right now who have the money to buy health insurance and decide not to do so because they don't want to spend the cash.

 

Now, you mentioned straw man earlier. I would say that the only argument I have made is that it's expensive. It is expensive and I don't think the expense will lessen with UHC using the same sorts of paradigms we have now. Yes, the US spends far more on health care. Funny. We spend astronomically more on defense also. Once again, I say that comparing our state of affairs with yours simplistic.

 

Otherwise, I would say that a UHC is not communistic, but it is socialistic in that it veers away from a free market. Mostly, I don't think my standard of care will improve. Having friends abroad, I have some basis for that assumption. So, which is better, good care for most folks are fair care for everyone? Which is better from a moral point of view? I'm not die hard against the system, but I don't see it as inherently better.

 

BTW: I personally think the 'you must be greedy because you don't support UHC' argument is pretty hollow. I don't know what you all give to charity, but I have a lot of strident liberal friends who talk a lot about helping the poor who don't give a dime to charity at all.

 

 

Gfted1: You should be grateful you're not responsible. You wouldn't believe the mess.

 

~

Groceries - basic food is available in most developed nations for so little money that it isn't necessary to have a government granary or anything like that. It's generally taken care of by government financial assistance. Also, (and I admit I'm not any sort of economist) food is a growth system. When it generates wealth it improves itself. I don't see insurance adding value to the economy. It's parasitic, if broadly beneficial.

 

Coverage - I don't see it as a problem that people who can afford insurance benefit from UHC. That's one of the selling points. I could afford private insurance, but by contributing a smaller amount through tax I get anything I need. A totally comprehensive cover, without quibbling. If I got a pig stuck in my lung I'd just get treated. But perhaps I've misunderstood your point?

 

Expense - I don't have time to hunt up a source we could both reasonably accept as non-partisan on expense. So I consider it honourable to ring-fence the point until one of us does. It's just nice to have established a clear decision point. If it turns out to be more expensive then I lose an important line of argument, but presumably if the inverse were true you'd shift as well. However, your point about defence spending is not a happy one for you. According to SIPRI you chaps spend only 4% GDP on defence. The UK spends 2.4%. Conversely with healthcare (and I'm not very happy with the source, but I can't find anything better):

 

ex-4.gif

 

The point being that while a 2% difference in defence spending produced the most incredible defence machine the world has ever seen, a 7% difference in healthcare produces at best a comparable service.

 

Caring & Socialism You make a good point about the ways we care. To continue your point I absolutely refuse to give money to third world charities. It's not because I don't care. It's because after my own experiences, and knowing several charity management types I believe that until security and corruption are addressed then it's money thrown away. My point was more targetted at the people who say that helping poor people is in fact hurting them. I understand the logic, I just think it's balls. It's not the same as with developing nations. If some guy has a torn ligament he can't freaking work. In fact I'd suggest that healthcare is the security of the individual 'state'.

 

BTW: I am a jerk.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rather interesting article about the subject.

 

Basically, it is about how easily the democrats shot themselves in the foot in this process. Unbelievable mismanagement and mudslinging, and the losers were of course the taxpayers themselves. I bet Guard Dog would have a field day reading this.

I almost laughed out loud at this line: "...lowering even further the general level of civility..." made in reference to protestors at the town hall meetings. That's pretty rich coming from an expletive filled diatribe.

 

The piece didn't make me angry, though. I can't respect it, and that's because the blogger had the opportunity to have a frank debate but resorted to what I consider deceptive tactics. That's funny considering his central theme of bashing deceptive Democrats. I'll cite two examples.

 

On the first page (and I read each and every one) the blogger mentions 47 million uninsured people. The only way to come up with such a number is to include illegal aliens. Now, I don't know if European countries offer UHC to illegal immigrants or not. I'm not joking. Maybe you do, that's fine. However, if you want to be an honest little blogger, why not say something to the effect of "47 million people, 36 million or so are US citizens?" It strikes me as deceptive to leave out a detail that is the cornerstone of so many arguments against the bills. Of course, President Obama says that Illegal aliens will not be covered by this reform, but the fact is that California tried to deny non emergency public services to illegal aliens and the federal courts shot them down. The SCotUS opted not to hear the case at all, which means that California must provide these services to illegal aliens. Frankly, as an aside, I don't think we should deny public education to illegal aliens because many of them are here to stay and educating their children helps society as a whole. Non emergency healthcare? I don't know about that. I'm actually sympathetic to folks who want a better life and risk everything to come here. Balanced against that is the fact that I want folks to follow our immigration laws.

 

The blogger used another example of what I consider decption in regards to a specific argument attributed to George Will specifically and conservatives in general. Basically, the argument is that private insurance will not be able to compete with the government option because the government option will not require a profit and therefore private insurance will be at a disadvantage. The blogger took this as an argument that affirms the greater efficiency of the government run system. However, that's not what Will or other conservatives mean at all. The point they make, and I agree with it, is that the government run option will be a mandate and it cannot lose money. Whatever shortfall it has, the government must cover. You can't provide insurance for everyone, let people with good insurance keep what they have, reduce spending, and do it all by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. That makes no sense at all. Frankly, it's a weird argument anyhow. The government will run things with much more efficiency but there is sufficient waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system that cutting it down will lead to sufficient savings to fund the bills? Most conservatives believe that this boondoggle will end up costing a fortune and the government, once committed, will be forced to spend an increasing amount on it. The CBO, which has hardly been a Republican bastion, has attested to this. To credit the blogger, he did mention the CBO on page seven of the piece.

 

Where I will agree with the blogger is that we cannot have UHC in the United States without starting from scratch. Medicare is a complete disaster. It has built in increases in spending that are simply going to bankrupt us as a nation and there is virtually no way to get rid of the program. Even an attempt to reduce the increase in spending falls under attack from our wonderful media who literally refer to such measures as 'cutting medicare.' I don't see any way to go to a single payer govt run system that will not bankrupt our country faster than we're already bankrupting ourselves by misusing and abusing Medicare and Social Security.

 

Anyhow, I think it was an interesting read, and so I honestly appreciate the post, Mesh.

 

I don't have time to respond to your excellent post, Walsh, but I will only say, you're not a jerk. You're a lunatic. lol. Ouch. I've had this stomach problem the past week or so and it hurts to laugh. So much for posting at a quarter to five am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to your reply.

 

If i may add a point which I forgot: the BBC. Having a state owned media is clearly not free-capitalist, and could be attacked on principle. However, the reality is that the BBC provide largely bias free programming (media types are generally left-liberal since they don't do real work but there's nothing you can do about that any more than you could make the Army left-liberal). The BBc also, and this is my main point, set a benchmark of excellence which forces the free market media to work bloody hard to keep up. they constantly complain about it, but they're better for it, IMO.

 

Also, I missed a bit. You're correct that 5% return on any standard investment is not excessive, although it is pretty good. I was recently told that construction projects are lucky to make 2%.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's kind of funny that since politicians' campaigns are funded by certain business interests, they can't act against said interests. In short, short-term personal gain and what would otherwise be a democratic system combines into an entirely different political system. Now what do I think is wrong in this whole business? I'm honestly not entirely sure. I'll just say that it strenghens my confidence in some personal virtues.

"Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

So would an individual state government, if it wished to, be able to organise universal health care for its own citizens? Have any done so? Would this be more acceptable to the public?

 

I would definately support that, since it would leave accountability to a closer and to a lower level, making it more easy for the taxpayers to verify any fraud or mismanagement. The federal government would simply have legislate the mandate "universal healthcare guaranteed to its citizens" to every state would be enough. Whether if they would adpot the swiss model or the british one would be up to them as long as it was universal.

 

@Steve: Oregon and Wisconson are working on this very thing right now. I believe it's on hold waiting to see what Obama and Congress are going to do. But their proposals are more manageable, far less onerouss and most importantly are constitutional.

 

@Meshugger: The Constitution does not permit the Federal government to tell the states "Thous Shalt or Shalt Not Do This" about much of anything unless a program is either 1) Paid for by Federal money, this would not be, or 2) Pertains to inter-state commerce or dealing with a foeriegn power. This would not. If an individual state wished to privide UHC for it's citizens I am all for it.

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Steve: Oregon and Wisconson are working on this very thing right now. I believe it's on hold waiting to see what Obama and Congress are going to do. But their proposals are more manageable, far less onerouss and most importantly are constitutional.

Thanks, Guard Dog. Of all the arguments I've read against Obama's plans, this is the first that makes any sense to me: Don't have federal/national health care because a lower tier of government can do it better. I also think it would make more sense to let these states go ahead, so that Americans could see the reality of universal health care up close, instead of the nightmare visions of foreign 'death panels' they seem to get now, and also so that different approaches could be tried.

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve! Surprised it's taken you this long to chip in.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of this, but I'm not necessarily opposed to UHC, but for the Europeans, ask yourself if you would want a single UHC program that covered all the countries in Europe. The US just has a huge population, and many people see a Universal Health Care system as a total nightmare that will be terribly mismanaged.

So would an individual state government, if it wished to, be able to organise universal health care for its own citizens? Have any done so? Would this be more acceptable to the public?

 

I would definately support that, since it would leave accountability to a closer and to a lower level, making it more easy for the taxpayers to verify any fraud or mismanagement. The federal government would simply have legislate the mandate "universal healthcare guaranteed to its citizens" to every state would be enough. Whether if they would adpot the swiss model or the british one would be up to them as long as it was universal.

 

@Meshugger: The Constitution does not permit the Federal government to tell the states "Thous Shalt or Shalt Not Do This" about much of anything unless a program is either 1) Paid for by Federal money, this would not be, or 2) Pertains to inter-state commerce or dealing with a foeriegn power. This would not. If an individual state wished to privide UHC for it's citizens I am all for it.

 

Fair enough, Brussels do not dictate on how we deal with Healthcare in Finland either. However, the subsequent question should be: out of 50 states, has any of those actually tried UHC on any degree? And i mean some kind of UHC that would actually work in the long run?

"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all a conspiracy by those damn communist-liberal hippies to tax me more and take my money!

well we could declare civil war and remove our failed government from power... and then after we capture them all, burn them all at the stake, with their next of kin.........

 

 

just kidding, we dont burn people atthe stake these days.....

 

all we do is burn the steak

 

either that or charge them all with treason..... inclduing the late TEd Kennedy

Strength through Mercy

Head Torturor of the Cult of the Anti-gnome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rather interesting article about the subject.

 

Basically, it is about how easily the democrats shot themselves in the foot in this process. Unbelievable mismanagement and mudslinging, and the losers were of course the taxpayers themselves. I bet Guard Dog would have a field day reading this.

No, it's because the Democrats are actually only slightly to the left of the Republicans (who are extreme right), but like to pretend otherwise to get progressive votes. If you think Americans were ever "set" to get UHC... Obama has literally said that he loves insurance companies and doesn't want them to die, and he keeps putting out feelers for a no-public-option solution.

 

The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry.
The only thing we're going to get is a giant-ass subsidy for the insurance companies that have been bum****ing everyone.

 

3ff91f71ca53fdc8852e5fd401677439.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, every president has someone telling folks that he's criminal, or he'll start world war 3, etc. Certainly, there has been a lot of hinkey business done in the White House, but some of these claims are just plain stupid. Don't like the President? Slap a 'Hitler mustache' on a picture of his face and make a poster. Even the liberals, who have used this tactic more, are the target. heh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Buchanan went a little nuts for a few years back in the 90's. He seems to have calmed down of late and his columns have been pretty good. Like this one that seems to repeat a lot of what I've been saying here lately. I think the US as a political institution is entering it's last phase of life. I believe a breakup is inevitable because no matter what the divisive issue is, the root of it is what power the federal government should or should not have. One side wants the see the Federalist system eliminated and for the national government to assume control of everything (note: this is not necessarily socialism or totalitarianism, but it could be), the other side wants to reign Uncle Sam back to his constitutionally defined role. The two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible with each other. At some point one of the two sides must capitulate or they shake hands and go their separate ways, each taking half of the country with them. Lets hope it's one of those two, the third possibility is that one side seizes power and tries to exterminate the other. I sincerely hope that never comes to pass.

 

Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States.

 

At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours?

 

Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother -- and then do assignments on his sermon.

 

The liberal commentariat raged about right-wing paranoia.

 

Yet Byron York of the Washington Examiner dug back to 1991 to discover that, when George H.W. Bush went to Alice Deal Junior High to speak to America's school kids, the left lost it.

 

"The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," railed the Washington Post. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was called before a House committee. The National Education Association denounced Bush. And Congress ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate.

 

Obama's actual speech proved about as controversial as a Nancy Reagan appeal to eighth-graders to "Just say no!" to drugs.

 

Yet, the episode reveals the poisoned character of our politics.

 

We saw it earlier on display in August, when the crowds that came out for town hall meetings to oppose Obama's health-care plans were called "thugs," "fascists," "racists" and "evil-mongers" by national Democrats.

 

We see it as Rep. Joe Wilson shouts, "You lie!" at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress.

 

We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats.

 

One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist.

 

Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.

 

The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?

 

Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and Fredericksburg.

 

Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools.

 

Where we used to have classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. Even our music seems designed to subdivide us.

 

One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.

 

But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.

 

We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard's Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.

 

Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture.

 

Now it is death panels, global warming, "birthers" and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together?

 

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.

 

"E pluribus unum"

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any big changes coming, we've been having these same arguments since the articles of the confederation. In 3-7 years we will have an entirely different leadership and we will argue about the same issues.

 

 

As for State run UHC, I'm not sure I want California running anything at this point. I have no idea how a state with a GNP larger than most countries is in such a pitiful state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...