Health care

[Winter wind]

I have an opinion on this, but I think it is not as informed as I want it to be. I want to hear about how Health Care in the United States is, and what should be changed about it if you think it is wrong.

Should we have nationalized medicine (socialized or universal health care or whatever) where the government provides health care for all

Or should we privatize the industry so that the efficiency of a capitalist system will allow for specialization and high quality care.

[HelioPrime]

Universal healthcare is a great step forward. Just look at a map, nearly all developed or developing countries have at least a partial system:

Americans have a lower average life expectancy than those in other industrialized nations with universal health care, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden.[

America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.[69]

Universal healthcare networks take away the aspects of greed and corruption that plague private healthcare providers. Being taken advantage of and having an inefficient and excluding healthcare system is not a privilege.

Everyone has a right to live and be serviced by healthcare. All our current system does is provide lesser levels of care to those who have less and exclude those who can't afford it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind I have an opinion on this, but I think it is not as informed as I want it to be. I want to hear about how Health Care in the United States is, and what should be changed about it if you think it is wrong. Should we have nationalized medicine (socialized or universal health care or whatever) where the government provides health care for all Or should we privatize the industry so that the efficiency of a capitalist system will allow for specialization and high quality care.

There is no inherent right to taxpayer-funded health care. If you want health care, it's your responsibility to pay for it. If employers want to provide health insurance as compensation for employment, they're welcome to do so. But, no, the government should not be involved.

[brien]

I don't trust the US government to manage anything, much less something so important and critical as health care.

[Winter wind]

I don't trust the US government to manage anything, much less something so important and critical as health care.

No, We'd much rather trust the insurance companies because they've kept their noses clean.
I know I said i didn't have a strong opinion, but i have bad feelings for the insurance companies simply because their chief goal is to maximize profits and they lose money every time they pay for treatment. They are required by law to get as much money as they can.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor There is no inherent right to taxpayer-funded health care. If you want health care, it's your responsibility to pay for it. If employers want to provide health insurance as compensation for employment, they're welcome to do so. But, no, the government should not be involved.

It exists if the elected officials determine it. There isn't any law specifically saying we can't use collected money for healthcare, yet there is wording for using money for the general welfare.

We don't need an inherent right to have universal healthcare, the majority can decide to endorse it.

If universal healthcare is challenged and a court decided in favor of universal healthcare then its policy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Altruists.

Why am I not suprised that the two Christians, one from Communist China, the other from the U.S. both agree that socialism is better than capitalism?

Altruists.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime It exists if the elected officials determine it. There isn't any law specifically saying we can't use collected money for healthcare, yet there is wording for using money for the general welfare.

No, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to create a national health care system and having such a system does not provide for the general welfare of the nation since bureaucracy is always bad for a country.

We don't need an inherent right to have universal healthcare, the majority can decide to endorse it.

No. This is not a democracy: the majority does not rule here. If you damned leftist, socialist, big government nanny staters want government to take care of you from cradle to grave then get the hell out of my country and go live in Canada or Europe or, in the alternative, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!

If universal healthcare is challenged and a court decided in favor of universal healthcare then its policy.

It doesn't matter what a court decides, the Courts do not have the authority to legislate from the bench.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor No, there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to create a national health care system and having such a system does not provide for the general welfare of the nation since bureaucracy is always bad for a country.

There is nothing that says the Fed can't either. Lacking that if elected officials vote for it it happens. General welfare is part of the constitution. Wouldn't general welfare apply to all the people, and as such imply a universal treatment standard across the nation?

The general care of the people is defined as a power of the government, and defined as a power they can tax for.

No. This is not a democracy: the majority does not rule here. If you damned leftist, socialist, big government nanny staters want government to take care of you from cradle to grave then get the hell out of my country and go live in Canada or Europe or, in the alternative, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!

We don't need to amend the constitution if the entire leadership structure from congress to the courts disregard it. If a socialist healthcare network was put in place and the highest court defends it then a precedent is set. Universal healthcare stays.

You can cry original intent all you want but unless you can get enough people to grab arms and overthrow the government then we are a popularly elected democracy, and not your republic.

It doesn't matter what a court decides, the Courts do not have the authority to legislate from the bench.

But the courts keep check on is laws violate your rights. If they don't take a stance to challenge healthcare then you have no choice. This isn't a free republic where every person has a choice. Its an accept the will of the mob or leave the country.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind No, We'd much rather trust the insurance companies because they've kept their noses clean. I know I said i didn't have a strong opinion, but i have bad feelings for the insurance companies simply because their chief goal is to maximize profits and they lose money every time they pay for treatment. They are required by law to get as much money as they can.

True, and what does the solution imply? Rejecting state AND corporate power, which tend to be two peas in the same pod. The problem is, many of us work for "public" or "private" bureaucracies in one way or another, thanks in part to our lousy economy where many people end up doing jobs they hate (I'm not immune to this, either).

There are a lot of pressures to conform to the coercive, greedy ways of life fostered by corporate and state power. If you don't conform and become ever-greedier and more conniving, you'll surely be somehow punished. For example: Get laid off from your job without working X number of hours or without meeting other arbitrary criteria? Well, "you don't qualify for unemployment," they may say. They'd rather spend billions on war than on basic things like healthcare and unemployment.
Killing people is fine for the state, but heaven forbid it spends your money on something like helping out its average citizens (not just with healthcare or unemployment, but during the Katrina disaster, for example).
The system simply does not work very well for average citizens, and for obvious reasons. The super-rich, however, can laugh all the way to the proverbial bank. The bank in turn can laugh (if it could) as it dominates resources and decisionmaking in the economy.

This is why I advocate self-government. Not hierarchical corporate government, not state government, but common-sense-based, essentially anti-authoritarian government. Yet people keep ridiculing anti-authoritarian ideas, falsifying them and making them sound like they are in themselves some kind of terrible, overly-Utopian, incompetent and ruthless approach to life. A lot of people are simply brainwashed to not see elementary truths about how things are and how they should be. Taxpayers are constantly being screwed, as intended. We're suckers, and we're legally required to be. If poor people drop down dead right in front of you, you're supposed to just walk past them and go shopping.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Why am I not suprised that the two Christians, one from Communist China, the other from the U.S. both agree that socialism is better than capitalism?

I haven't been called a socialist in such a long time. Its refreshing actually.
If you think socialism is better then capitalism all the time, you would need to eliminate the army, the police force, a lot of the fireman, the banking system, the intelligence agency, etc.

Calling it socialized is just a way of color it "evil red" and then presenting their plan as the medical plan of freedom. What actually seems to happen is in this plan they hand over all the medical power to companies who's chief goal is to take as much money from you as possible. Any payment for treatment is a financial loss.

No. This is not a democracy: the majority does not rule here. If you damned leftist, socialist, big government nanny staters want government to take care of you from cradle to grave then get the hell out of my country and go live in Canada or Europe or, in the alternative, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!

If the majority does not rule and the government does not rule, what does?
The constitution? Where does it say nationalized medicine is illegal? Oh, and I live in Hong Kong where I pay no sales tax and get (basically) free medicine. The system is great and I don't complain. (I do complain about Beijing over powering legislatures in hong kong.)

I don't want the government to take care of me from the cradle to the grave, I just feel like right to life is a right which includes if I'm sick, but can't pay, someone would help.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: HelioPrime Universal healthcare is a great step forward. Just look at a map, nearly all developed or developing countries have at least a partial system:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Universal healthcare networks take away the aspects of greed and corruption that plague private healthcare providers.

Because stealing people's money is not greed, amirite?

Being taken advantage of and having an inefficient and excluding healthcare system is not a privilege.

That is what you will get with so-called "universal healthcare".

Everyone has a right to live and be serviced by healthcare. All our current system does is provide lesser levels of care to those who have less and exclude those who can't afford it.

Serviced to what extent?

Let me save you the trouble of answering with something like "The fullest extent possible!" The logical conclusion of that answer is for everyone on Earth to do everything in their power to service one person's health. Of course, in so doing, they sacrifice their own health, which ultimately means death. How many people do you know who would willingly give their lives for e.g. a stranger dying of cancer?

"A right to live" can have different meanings. For example, it can mean "a right for no one to interfere with one's life", i.e. injuring or killing him. Apparently, it can also mean "a right for one's life to be provided-for by others", i.e. sacrifice of those others for the one. This latter view is ultimately untenable. Human desires -- including the desire for life -- being infinite, and the number of other people being finite, one will run into the wall of scarcity at some point. On the other hand, everyone can (theoretically) refrain from injuring or killing anyone else at all times. Scarcity is not an issue there.

So-called "positive rights" are expressions of pride and greed, plain and simple. They say, "I don't care what you want, give me what I want! I'm more important than you!"

- Rob

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Altruists. Why am I not suprised that the two Christians, one from Communist China, the other from the U.S. both agree that socialism is better than capitalism? Altruists.

Because some us stand for the global welfare of every US citizen. Not just the ones who can afford healthcare, or are 100% born here US citizens.

For me anyway, saying "the founders wanted it" doesn't work as an answer. I don't give a shit about the intent of men 200 years dead. I was born here and have just as much a natural right to change my society. Society evolves, just like animals. As such its time to take the steps and join the progress to socialist healthcare that btw works well!

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Autolykos Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Rob

Perhaps you should read some quotes or do a google search. What countries have the best healthcare system? Socialist ones? GASP*

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime There is nothing that says the Fed can't either. Lacking that if elected officials vote for it it happens. General welfare is part of the constitution. Wouldn't general welfare apply to all the people, and as such imply a universal treatment standard across the nation?

Wrong! If a power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (or its 27 amendments), the federal government does not have that power. Health care is not part of "the general welfare."

The general care of the people is defined as a power of the government, and defined as a power they can tax for.

The government does not have the authority to define what "general welfare" means. The only definition of the various words used in the Constitution that is valid is the definition of those who wrote and ratified it.

We don't need to amend the constitution if the entire leadership structure from congress to the courts disregard it. If a socialist healthcare network was put in place and the highest court defends it then a precedent is set. Universal healthcare stays.

Wrong again. The federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the Courts do not have the authority to change that. Further, the Courts do not have the authority to substitute its own meanings for those of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

You can cry original intent all you want but unless you can get enough people to grab arms and overthrow the government then we are a popularly elected democracy, and not your republic.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic! If you want some other form of government then either get the hell out of my country or put together a constitutional convention to write an entirely new constitution.

But the courts keep check on is laws violate your rights. If they don't take a stance to challenge healthcare then you have no choice. This isn't a free republic where every person has a choice. Its an accept the will of the mob or leave the country.

The job of the Courts is restricted to what is specifically enumerated in Article III (as amended). They have no other powers and they don't get to have a say on any issue that does not specifically arise under the Constitution. And, no, the mob does not rule here. In this republic, it's the law that rules and, specifically, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Autolykos So-called "positive rights" are expressions of pride and greed, plain and simple. They say, "I don't care what you want, give me what I want! I'm more important than you!"

Right to universal healthcare is a standard to bring the same level of treatment to everyone. Thats not selfish.

Of course if your going to say it is then isn't private healthcare selfish as well? Should be ban any type of healthcare because its selfish to want to have an available system to extend your life?

[Winter wind]

This is why I advocate self-government. Not hierarchical corporate government, not state government, but common-sense-based, essentially anti-authoritarian government. Yet people keep ridiculing anti-authoritarian ideas, falsifying them and making them sound like they are in themselves some kind of terrible, overly-Utopian, incompetent and ruthless approach to life. A lot of people are simply brainwashed to not see elementary truths about how things are and how they should be. Taxpayers are constantly being screwed, as intended. We're suckers, and we're legally required to be. If poor people drop down dead right in front of you, you're supposed to just walk past them and go shopping.

Wait, whats your plan? Just pay for the procedures myself? But what if I get a very curable illness like tuberculosis, but can't pay for the treatment? If it wasn't my fault I'm poor (ie, I lost my job because of layoffs and am trying to keep a family afloat), why do I get a death sentence?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Winter wind But what if I get a very curable illness like tuberculosis, but can't pay for the treatment? If it wasn't my fault I'm poor (ie, I lost my job because of layoffs and am trying to keep a family afloat), why do I get a death sentence?

Health care is your responsibility, not the government's. You have no right to demand that others pay for your health care!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime Right to universal healthcare is a standard to bring the same level of treatment to everyone. Thats not selfish.

No, there is no right to universal health care. You do not have the right to demand that others pay for your health care. If you want health care then you pay for it or find a job where the employer (out of the kindness of his own heart) provides it as a benefit of employment. Get your damned hands out of my paycheck!

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor Wrong! If a power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (or its 27 amendments), the federal government does not have that power. Health care is not part of "the general welfare."

Really? Does the constitution specifically spell out "healthcare" is not a part of general welfare?

Jets had not been invented in 1800's. So because they are not included in the constitution is it then illegal for the president to travel on Air Force One, using taxpayer money?

See the insanity with your logic? They didn't have much in the way of healthcare except private doctors. If they knew or had a concept of a universal system I think the founders would have flocked to the idea of a global standard for treatment that included everyone.

The government does not have the authority to define what "general welfare" means. The only definition of the various words used in the Constitution that is valid is the definition of those who wrote and ratified it.

How do you know what they meant? Can you ask them? They didn't have the issue of universal healthcare so they didn't write about it.

Your using the Air Force One argument again. Your saying because the founders didn't spell out rights to use taxpayer money of a jet then the president can't use it

Wrong again. The federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the Courts do not have the authority to change that. Further, the Courts do not have the authority to substitute its own meanings for those of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

What are you going to do if they put healthcare forward and defend it? Cry?

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic! If you want some other form of government then either get the hell out of my country or put together a constitutional convention to write an entirely new constitution.

We are whatever society people want us to be. A piece of paper means nothing if the whole of society doesn't say anything when the government tramples over it.

The job of the Courts is restricted to what is specifically enumerated in Article III (as amended). They have no other powers and they don't get to have a say on any issue that does not specifically arise under the Constitution. And, no, the mob does not rule here. In this republic, it's the law that rules and, specifically, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

See above ^

You love the law so much you can't see the fact the majority as well as the leaders don't care. Well perhaps Ron Paul cares but lets see him get into office.