National Healthcare for the USA

by sammielee24 348 Replies latest jw friends

funkyderek

LittleToe:
I guess that my support of National Healthcare would be on the grounds that I believe that every humanbeing has a right to certain basic health provisions.

From where does that right derive? If everyone has this right then it means that someone has the corresponding responsibility to provide such care. Who has that responsibility? Doctors? The rich? Everybody?
If someone smokes, eats fast food, does no exercise and doesn't have a job, why should I, a hard-working healthy-eating prize specimen of human fitness (ahem!) be forced to fund their treatment?
Food, shelter and transport are also necessities; if healthcare is a right, then surely, so are they. Does everyone have a right to be given a house, a car, food? How good does it have to be? Who ends up paying for it?
I propose the following: Everyone has a right to healthcare if and only if they can find a healthcare provider who is willing to treat them. Healthcare providers have an obligation to treat someone if and only if they have made a binding agreement to do so, which they can do on any terms that both parties accept.
Those who cannot afford treatment or otherwise cannot reach an agreement with a healthcare provider must rely on the compassion of others.
(The word healthcare above can be replaced by any other goods or services.)
LittleToe

Derek:Since you're determined to widen the debate to other areas of social care; I have to suggest to you that those things are also covered under the social security system. Housing is provided, public transportation is available, and a gyro of a modest sum. None of these systems are perfect, in fact they are depreciating through reduced investment, but they do exist.
Personally I'd like those who are fit enough to provide some kind of community service, while in receipt of such benefits. That should dissuade the loafers who are parasites on the system, while allowing a genuine safety net for those who have either fallen on hard times or who have become incapacitated.
Where does the Hippocratic Oath come into your little "health" scheme? Further, aren't you advocating a return to quackery, where those who cannot get help elsewhere will turn to anyone who offers "assistance"? It would be like turning back the clock 100 years!!!
funkyderek

LittleToe:
Since you're determined to widen the debate to other areas of social care; I have to suggest to you that those things are also covered under the social security system. Housing is provided, public transportation is available, and a gyro of a modest sum. None of these systems are perfect, in fact they are depreciating through reduced investment, but they do exist.

I think it's difficult to discuss a subject like this without looking at the underlying principles which also apply to services other than healthcare. It starts out with good intentions, providing a "safety-net", but it invariably ends up with people getting boob jobs, free housing and a living wage at the taxpayer's expense. The reason is that people become used to the idea that they have a right to that which they did not earn. If they have a right to £50 a week of other people's money, why not £100? If they're "entitled" to have a broken bone reset, why aren't they entitled to a new hip or new breasts?
Personally I'd like those who are fit enough to provide some kind of community service, while in receipt of such benefits. That should dissuade the loafers who are parasites on the system, while allowing a genuine safety net for those who have either fallen on hard times or who have become incapacitated.
I had a similar idea involving unemployed people and exercise bikes being used to generate electricity. This would have the threefold benefit of providing a wage for people who can't or won't find gainful employment, generating clean cheap electricity and improving the health of the unemployed.
On a more serious note, abolishing the minimum wage would allow far more people to find employment. Those who work hard could then escape the poverty trap. Those who are unwilling to work would likely starve. Those who are unable could rely on the compassion of their friends, family and community.
Where does the Hippocratic Oath come into your little "health" scheme?
I don't see any conflict. Certainly, doctors (or anyone) who wish to provide their services for free or below market value would not be prevented from doing so.
Further, aren't you advocating a return to quackery, where those who cannot get help elsewhere will turn to anyone who offers "assistance"?
Not at all. Of course, there's no shortage of quackery now. In fact, at the moment, alternative "medicine" is often paid for by the taxpayer. France is the most obvious example of this, where homeopathic "remedies" are available free and are widely prescribed. In my ideal society, people would be able to purchase whatever snake oil they wished, but would not be forced to purchase it for others. Caveat emptor!
It would be like turning back the clock 100 years!!!
More like turning it forward 100 years. Socialism is well-intentioned but has always been a bad idea. A spirit of individual rights and responsibilities will lead to a more prosperous productive society with happier healthier people.
SixofNine

FD said: "someone else being forced to pay for your medical care."
I don't use the local library much if ever anymore, but I'm "forced" to pay for it. Democratic societies can decide to provide health care. Forced schmorsed. The advantages are obvious, the negatives seem to come down to good old fashioned American "can't do" spirit, or people who have an idealogical opposition to society at large helping people, ie: assholes. Ireland has decided to have national healthcare, has it not? And still managed to have an economy nicknamed worldwide as "the Irish miracle", yes? In fact this discussion is funny insomuch as America is a country where we are not just "forced" to pay for national defense, we are "forced" to pay many times the amount of any other country, and many times the amount needed to keep our country safe from threat. There is so much waste in our defense budget that we could fund national healthcare out of it and still have a more robust military.
America can do much better, and do it more efficiently than we are now. Of course, a monkey could do it more efficiently than we are now.
funkyderek

SixofNine:
Democratic societies can decide to provide health care.

Democratic societies can also decide to enslave minorities. That's why I prefer to live in a republic where individual rights are respected over majority rule.
The advantages are obvious, the negatives seem to come down to good old fashioned American "can't do" spirit, or people who have an idealogical opposition to society at large helping people, ie: assholes.
I hope you don't mean me. Personally, I have no problem helping people. I like doing it and I think everybody should be helpful where possible. But I don't think people should be forced to do so.
Ireland has decided to have national healthcare, has it not? And still managed to have an economy nicknamed worldwide as "the Irish miracle", yes?
The "Irish miracle" or "Celtic Tiger" economy happened largely because the government lowered taxes for businesses, allowing them to flourish in a free market. Our health service is indeed public, and is utterly shameful. It is and has been for many years a complete mess. Waiting lists are huge. There is a constant shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital beds. Fortunately, in the last ten years or so, the government has allowed private health insurance which has improved things dramatically for those able to afford it - which, thanks to our laissez-faire capitalist economy, is almost everybody!
In fact this discussion is funny insomuch as America is a country where we are not just "forced" to pay for national defense, we are "forced" to pay many times the amount of any other country, and many times the amount needed to keep our country safe from threat. There is so much waste in our defense budget that we could fund national healthcare out of it and still have a more robust military.
SixofNine

lol, I think the library analogy trumps the old "let's enslave minorities for fun and profit" chesnut. But that's just me.
SixofNine

.....I think everybody should be helpful where possible. But I don't think people should be forced to do so.

I do, especially policemen and firemen and air traffic controllers. I think maritime laws that require boaters to help other boaters are good laws as well.
I think 911 operators should be forced to be not just helpful, but efficient in providing that help as well. Sure, the whole fam could pitch in when little Timmy falls down the well (thanks Lassie! arf!), and sure, Bob across the street does have a kickass new winch he's been dying to try out, but I think Timmy's more likely to be happy and productive (also less dead or crippled) in the future if I call 911.
You see Derek, I know you're hurting inside, and I just want to say, ... :cue music: .....people,
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world
Were children needing other children
And yet letting our grown-up pride
Hide all the need inside
Acting more like children than children
((((Derek))))
LittleToe

~pats Six's lil pointy head~
LOL
SixofNine

On a more serious note, abolishing the minimum wage would allow far more people to find employment.

Why? Do you mean in sweatshops, and until there are no longer buyers for their sweatshop products?
Those who work hard could then escape the poverty trap.
You mean the way people in sweatshops so often escape the poverty trap? My god man, look at your own language: "poverty trap".
Those who are unwilling to work would likely starve.
Or they might just kill you and take your food. Most people aren't willing to starve rather than work (even if that work is stealing from you), I think this is well established fact.
Those who are unable could rely on the compassion of their friends, family and community.
You say that as if you've solved the worlds problems, Derek. Voila! Er, but what if those friends, family, and community have no, or not enough, compassion? A country needs happy, (but especially) productive people to thrive, and all succesful countries use a concept known as economy of scale to find ways to produce those happy productive people.
Socialism is well-intentioned but has always been a bad idea.
Combined with democracy it seems to have produced the best forms of government to date, from what I can see. Take a look at the list I post below, and tell me what I'm missing.
A spirit of individual rights and responsibilities will lead to a more prosperous productive society with happier healthier people.
Yep, couldn't agree more. But you seem to want to say that no one has any responsibilities to their fellow man via society or government. Btw, Derek, isn't it also accurate to say that "happier healthier people" will lead to "a more prosperous productive society"? I think so.
One other point, thrown out there for everyone including the yahoos: much of the great successes of capitalism have stemmed from the systems of investment that most (all?) capitalistic societies have developed and nurtured. Why would anyone, especially anyone who believes in capitalism, resist the idea of investing in people? The product of a nation is not just money or unchallenged power; rather it's productive people.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The projection, which is to be published in a psychology journal this September, will be presented at a conference later in the year. Participants in the various studies were asked questions related to happiness and satisfaction with life. The meta-analysis is based on the findings of over 100 different studies around the world, which questioned 80,000 people worldwide. For this study data has also been analysed in relation to health, wealth and access to education.

Whilst collecting data on subjective well-being is not an exact science, the measures used are very reliable in predicting health and welfare outcomes. It can be argued that whilst these measures are not perfect they are the best we have so far, and these are the measures that politicians are talking of using to measure the relative performance of each country.
The 20 happiest nations in the World are: (strongly weighted towards socialism, that's what they are)

1 - Denmark

2 - Switzerland

3 - Austria

4 - Iceland

5 - The Bahamas

6 - Finland

7 - Sweden

8 - Bhutan

9 - Brunei

10 - Canada

11 - Ireland

12 - Luxembourg

13 - Costa Rica

14 - Malta

15 - The Netherlands

16 - Antigua and Barbuda

17 - Malaysia

18 - New Zealand

19 - Norway

20 - The Seychelles
LDH
Lea that sounds horrible, I'm really sorry. ((((((Lea))))))
OK, so let's call a truce.
I'll agree to National Healthcare, and would even encourage legislators to adopt this model IF:
- There's a fail -safe provision that does not allow any additional claims against Unemployment Insurance and Welfare because people are quitting their jobs. You say I'm foolish to believe people quit their jobs, I know of 3 people who timed the birth of their children to milk the welfare system and, in their mid-30's have NEVER held a full time job.
- We set limits of how many children each person may have based on their financial ability to care for those dependents. If you can't afford a child, you need to be on mandatory Depo- injections 4 times a year (or something similar). This save taxpayers from future losses.
- The estimate of 3.3% budget has a performance clause. Namely, if we go over 3.3%, we sieze the home and all personal assets of the "experts" who put this thing together including those who made NHS their campaign platform.
- All chronic disease patients are carefuly monitored so that, as a society, we can be sure they are compliant with their medication regimen, thereby saving NHS a ton of money.
- Research and development of new medicines will no longer be done in this country or by American owned pharmaceuticals; since there will be a single vendor they will dictate the price. No further drug development. After all, this is driven by the profit motive of the Pharma companies, they have no business making a PROFIT.
- We force people to become medical providers, set a quota and see it through. You say no, but since I know that Dr's are paid on average less than $45 per DR. office visit by Medicare, no one can afford to be in practice at that reimbursement level. When I left NY state, Medical was paying $17 for an extended office visit!!!! $17 for one hour of medical services, to pay all of the nurses and keep the lights on.
Here's a part of the 2006 Medicare fee schedule. Yes people these are reimbursement amounts. Do you know may Dr's who want to practice, or can even afford to, when the average Medicare reimbursment per hour TOTAL is less than $100? Here's the link if you know your way around CPT codes http://www.hgsa.com/files/fee0106.pdf
99211 * $9.58 9.1 10.47 0 XXX 0.17 0 0.01 0 0.06 0.39 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975 A 0 0 0 0 0
1 99212 * $25.6 24.32 27.97 0 XXX 0.45 0 0.03 0 0.16 0.54 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975 A 0 0 0 0 0
1 99213 56.24 53.43 61.44 0 XXX 0.67 0 0.03 0 0.24 0.69 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975 A 0 0 0 0 0
1 99213 * 37.41 35.54 40.87 0 XXX 0.67 0 0.03 0 0.24 0.69 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975 A 0 0 0 0 0
1 99214 88.07 83.67 96.22 0 XXX 1.1 0 0.05 0 0.41 1.03 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975 A 0 0 0 0 0
1 99214 * 62.13 59.02 67.87 0 XXX 1.1 0 0.05 0 0.41 1.03 1.016 1.104 1.386 37.8975
Yeah from here it's looking like, um, it ain't gonna work. Oh, and another thing, there's supposed to be something evil about me feeling that I'm a "better person" than the next chick? Well, all things equal, yes, being a PRODUCTIVE member of society in fact does make me a BETTER PERSON so "tough titty" said the mamma to the kitty. Lisa
"ASSHOLE" Class

National Healthcare for the USA

Share this