Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Thorne]

rofl!

She was joking.


Wait, if you're going to include breast implants...

*looks down at chest*

Of course! And butt jobs, too.

Sorry, denuseri. One of the hazards of written communication. Sometimes my irony meter breaks down.

[SadisticNature]

The McDonald's case regarding the coffee was an excellent example of media sensationalism. The issue was not "the cup did not warn it was hot", this was rather a comedy bit on the case that played well in the media. The issue was the coffee was overboiled and was 20 degrees (C not F) above the temperature it was supposed to be. Thus the person suffered much more severe burns when they spilled their coffee. And they sued for their medical costs. As this wasn't a lawsuit against a doctor it doesn't even effect the cost of malpractice insurance.

The precise ruling was because the coffee was far beyond the expected normal temperature that a reasonable person would expect coffee to be, yet carried no additional warning (either spoken from the attendant, or written on the cup).

Btw, when they serve me cold coffee and I sue them for false advertising (the cup said Caution: Hot!) is that a frivolous lawsuit?

[SadisticNature]

It works in a sizable number of countries.

No one is saying food should be free, the government has no business having any control over your diet.

No one is saying auto repairs should be free, the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what parts go into your car.

Healthcare is different in that:
(I) Public systems are working well elsewhere in the world.
(II) Your current system is problematic and is getting worse. The age at which people begin their work careers keeps getting later, and people are finding themselves unable to get insurance once they are off their parents insurance because at 25 they already have pre-existing conditions. Many of these conditions are environmental (or genetic) and hence outside the control of those afflicted by them. Even if they are managing the condition through proper responsible diet and exercise, its existence makes it impossible for them to get insurance save through getting a job that provides good insurance. These jobs are getting rarer as employers cut costs. Furthermore, with visible medical conditions employers often refuse to hire although they will officially site other reasons.

On the other hand I'm not surprised to see a country/municipality/state that can send firefighters to your house and bill you for it, despite the fact that you didn't want them there, believes in private medicine.

Likewise for a country/municipality/state that sends someone a $28,000 US bill because their house burnt down.

[denuseri]

I wasn't joking at all, I think the main thing that has screwed up our medical system is in fact the insurance and drug companies combined with the lawyers.

And as nice as free food or other non life saving services might be, its not part of the topic persay.

[MMI]

I think it's incredible that an ordinary family with three incomes still has to struggle to make ends meet, and still feel the need to apply for social benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps. It seems to me that the poorer you are, the harder you have to work, just to stop going under.

When I was young, my wife and I had two incomes - both relatively low, but enough to get by on. Had we had to put a significant monthly payment aside to cover our medical needs, we would probably have elected not to do so. We would probably, as a consequence, have had to forego medical treatment, if the need ever arose. We would have made a critical choice for purely economic reasons.

And if we had needed medical treatment, we would have become a burden on society.

However, in the UK, an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income. These deductions entitle that person to receive any medical attention he needs. OK, no-one likes paying taxes, but if it's a choice between paying a health care tax or an insurance premium, where's the difference?

The difference is that you can't opt out, and later become a freeloader.

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

[steelish]

(Now I've put it that way, I'm surprised there's so much right-wing resistance to the idea)

It has nothing to do with right-wing/left-wing. I am slightly to the right of center on my views. It has to do with my belief that the health care bill is a trojan horse of sorts.

Progressives have been taking baby steps in changing America for years. Oliver Wendell Holmes (during his time as a Supreme Court Justice) wrote an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia's compulsory sterilization law in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman. Holmes wrote, "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... three generations of imbeciles are enough." While his detractors point to this case as an extreme example of his moral relativism, other legal observers argue that this was a consistent extension of his own version of strict utilitarianism, which weighed the morality of policies according to their overall measurable consequences in society and not according to their own normative worth. Needless to say, Holmes was admired by the Progressives of his day.

I've italicized and made bold the text that applies to my viewpoint. He used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing. He was trying to use that case to introduce PERMANENT sterilization. Who is to say that the health care bill won't open the door for Progressives to impose restrictions and/or penalties upon the public? They might not, but chances are very likely that SOMEONE will. The people in power today that are assuring us that this will not happen are not the same people that will be in power when our children and grandchildren are older.

Those who insist that this will not happen and pish-posh the naysayers, can you with 100% CERTAINTY, guarantee that it will not happen? If you can't, why are you taking a chance with the future?

[Losalt]

Hum, I have several pages worth that I'd like to say, but looking at my previous posts and my current time (in this timezone) I think I better head for bed and come back later with more constructive comments..

[oww-that-hurt]

an employee has deductions made from his salary/wages according to the size of his income.

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway? To quell any naysayers, we don't have high-speed internet, or cell phones, or smoke, or have fancy cars, or go to movies, or any of the other stuff folks think they need. We butcher our own meat, too. The $ just aren't there for over $1,000 per month for insurance. We can cover the $300 if push comes to shove, such as no longer donating 400-600 pounds of food to the food bank each year. I like the idea of health-care tax, based on income. We would have insurance and the food bank would get donations (dropped off 37.4 pounds today).

[MMI]

[Holmes] used one thing to EXPAND UPON and try to introduce another thing.

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

First, I am hoping this works.... I've never successfully done the quote thing.

You have now!

Our illustrious Montana Senator has decided that if we don't buy insurance we will be fined what averages to about $300 per month. There is a bunch of us middle-class folks that make too much money for assistance (wouldn't take it anyway) but not enough for insurance. So where is the logic in fining us, which after that, we still won't have insurance anyway?

No clue ... unless he feels that, if everyone does buy insurance, he won't have to fine anybody. I guess that comes down to an economic calculation: which is cheaper, the fine plus any emergency health bills you might have to meet, or the insurance premium.

I think he's taking entirely the wrong approach. There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

[Thorne]

[INDENT]There's no point in forcing your opinions on people who are that unwilling ... I mean, look what happens when I post here!!!

But you aren't forcing your opinions on anyone. If someone here doesn't like your opinions they don't have to read them. After all, it's not like you can shout them down.

And it's not like your right, anyway.

[steelish]

Aren't you doing something very similar here?

I am? How so. Please explain.

[MMI]

I am? How so. Please explain.

My brief study of Holmes's Opinion in Buck v Bell leads me to believe that his intention was to uphold the practice of eugenics in the US as constitutional, rather than to validate the methods used in particular instances. I don't think that by approving permanent sterilisation in this case he was doing anything new. I have not seen any reference to the exclusive use of temporary sterilisation methods prior to this case.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, that he did legitimise permanent sterilisation for the first time by extending the meaning of "vaccination", I do not see how this demonstrates that the passage of the health bill will enable "Progressives" (who or what are they when they're at home?) to impose different and unintended penalties on the public at some time in the future? By the same logic, should we all not fear some progressive movement in the future declaring that Magna Carta made all forms of imprisonment unlawful, and so all gaols should be emptied forthwith?

[Stealth694]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.

[Thorne]

Insurance is needed, but not so much to "take care of us", but to keep hospitals open, how many hospitals get ER admisions who cannot pay? But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them? Dead beats, homeless, unemployed, when people need medical help they don't worry about bills... A govt health insurance bill is more for the hospitals than the people.

Perhaps, but the people still have to pay for it, whether they want it or not. It's basically forced charity donations. Or penalties for not donating to charity.

[steelish]

But because of the St Mary's law the hospital must help them?

St. Mary's school of Law?

Or do you mean to say the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal act passed by Congress in 1986.

[steelish]

I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[DuncanONeil]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.
As written does not permit the holder of a medical Power of Attorney to make the decision, unless they have no interest in the death of the person. How many people are going to give a Power of Attorney to people they do not know??

I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[steelish]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

[DuncanONeil]

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

[steelish]

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

Of course they do! The constitution is built on the belief of Natural Law. When we are born, we are individuals (which gives us the right to pursue happiness). We have life (therefore we have a right to live) and essentially, we have freedom (which gives us the right to that).

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are not born with our bank account (at least, most of us aren't). We are not born owning a home, in command of a health care plan, with our own car and a job. Those are things that as we grow, we earn by working for them.

Health care is not a right. It is something that is purchased, therefore it is something that each individual must work to purchase if that is their choice.

[Seroquel]

Could you link to an article about that? It sounds interesting. As for your question I have to say I have a hard time imagining any government would want to take that decision into their own hands. Can you even imagine the kind of legal problems that would cause if they made a mistake? I don't think it's realistic to assume that euthanasia will be offered to people who aren't capable of making the decision, it would be a nightmare for the government to handle.

[steelish]

It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here is the link.

[SadisticNature]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here is the link.

[steelish]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

[SadisticNature]

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

[DuncanONeil]

What I'm saying is its not going to pass and that its an extreme proposal with no mainstream credibility. This means its not something that's a reasonable attack on the Canadian system. So using it on a discussion in US health care to point out a flaw in the Canadian system isn't exactly a sound argument.

This would be akin to me taking the most extreme proposal on either side of the US health-care system and using that to attack US health care.

You mean like the bills currently in Congress that the majority party can not pass?

[DuncanONeil]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

[SadisticNature]

"None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications."

Show me a paper that is!!

Fair, my point I guess is that all the links are to sources on one side of the political spectrum, whereas if the issue was generating serious attention and people thought it was really going to pass there would be good sources from both sides of the political spectrum.

[MMI]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

[steelish]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

So...what I am reading is that America is an uncaring and contemptuous society that kicks its "poor" and underprivileged to the curb.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. I gather from the post written that America will continue to be viewed that way (by you) unless we adopt a National Healthcare system. Color me funny, but I just can't help but feel you will still look down your nose at America, regardless.

Americans have nothing against a fairly funded health care system. We have nothing against a reform program that works at reducing costs - whether it be tort reform or some other means. What the majority of us are against is a government run healthcare system.

One of our best friends just got back from Canada. He asked his girlfriend to buy bottles of Advil and bring them up to Canada with her. Why? Because he can't buy Advil right off the shelf there. It's restricted. He has to go to the doctor, get a prescription, then visit the pharmacist for a simple pain reliever. It's nuts. That's just a small sample of the red tape that has to be dealt with in a government run healthcare system.