Silent no more

[PLC1]

yeah its great if you dont want to work because you dont pay. Oregon income tax is very high for those who makes more than min wage, our min was by the way is almost 9 dollars.

So people like me pay high state taxes so people who dont work or dont work much can get free health care. Who would not sign up for something that is free?

Now is it good? I dont know, you can ask the springfield woman who had cancer and if she were still alive she would say she was unhappy with oregon government run health care because they flat said they refused to help her with treatment but they would be happy to pay for her to die with doctor assisted suicide.

Odd to me you would be shocked that people who do not work or add anything to a program would want free stuff from that program if they could get it.

But this health care is not like the government health care obama wants. obama's health care would cost more and you would eventually not have a choice but to take the program.

That sounds more like what we call Medicare in California. Medicare is for the indigent, and, if you have anything worth having, it will take it out of your estate when you die.

You're right, of course, that medical insurance can't be free. The user has to pay something, or it is just another welfare program.

As for the woman who was refused medication because her chances of survival were less than 5%, who would have paid for it if Oregon hadn't had a public option? Didn't she still have the option to pay for the meds herself? If not, then the plan was flawed.

 

[Pandora]

That sounds more like what we call Medicare in California. Medicare is for the indigent, and, if you have anything worth having, it will take it out of your estate when you die.

You're right, of course, that medical insurance can't be free. The user has to pay something, or it is just another welfare program.

As for the woman who was refused medication because her chances of survival were less than 5%, who would have paid for it if Oregon hadn't had a public option? Didn't she still have the option to pay for the meds herself? If not, then the plan was flawed.

I really do not mind so much when they force me to pay for the oregon health care plan IF its going to help people. I do mind when they force me to pay for this plan then do not help people.

The Oregon health care plan covers just about anyone who comes here illegally, they are all poor. It covers people who are drunks, addicted to drugs, people who refuse to work so they just bum around. I think they should have helped this woman and people like her first and if there is money left over then help those who will not help themselves and those who are here illegally.

 

[PLC1]

I really do not mind so much when they force me to pay for the oregon health care plan IF its going to help people. I do mind when they force me to pay for this plan then do not help people.

The Oregon health care plan covers just about anyone who comes here illegally, they are all poor. It covers people who are drunks, addicted to drugs, people who refuse to work so they just bum around. I think they should have helped this woman and people like her first and if there is money left over then help those who will not help themselves and those who are here illegally.

The humane thing to do when illegals show up needing care is to do what it takes to get them on their feet, then deport them.

Why is it that no one in government seems to be willing to put an end to illegal immigration?

 

[Pandora]

The humane thing to do when illegals show up needing care is to do what it takes to get them on their feet, then deport them.

Why is it that no one in government seems to be willing to put an end to illegal immigration?

Easy

The Latino vote

They feel if they take a hard stand on it they will lose a huge voting block


They care more about getting re elected than following the law.


Yesterday I was really mad. We went to a Carls Jr. for lunch. there were about a dozen illegal alien mexians in the place getting lunch too. They were hired to work on repaving the main road. I am sure its a stim thing. I thought to myself, a job Americans wont do huh?

What bothered me more than that was the girls high school soccer team was having lunch too, and they were in matching (way too short, shorts) the men all sat in a way they could watch the girls til the girls were so uncomfortable they left. I wanted to go up to these men and back hand them all. I understand where they are from no girl would dress or act like that in public unless they were "easy" But when you come to another country you should learn the customs.


Now before anyone screams I am racist, I am also considered latino. Actually we adopted more of our mexian customs growing up than we ever did our Native. When I was a kid our family activly helped illegals cross the border and we got them set up in housing and got them connected with the local tree planting groups. The men that came here were respectful and were here just to plant trees. Most of them ate rice and beans all month saving the money they earned and when the season was over they took the money home to help their wives and kids, mothers and fathers exc.

Those men were here to do jobs Americans would not do. My brothers were almost the only legal tree planters I knew of.

Its not that way anymore, now they are taking construction jobs, meat cutting.. you name it. They are also not making money and going home with it, instead they are bringing the family here. We have so many illegals in public school that we can not really handle the load, they do not pay taxes, most of them work under the table. Some of them have the woman and kids apply for welfare and public housing exc and the men work under the table. But there are no extra taxes to support the new load.

Our banks give them visa's and loans for houses and advertise that all they need is the matricula consular card. If you are using that, you are not legal and the bank knows it.

Anyway, this isnt a thread on illegal aliens so Ill shut up now

 

[GenSeneca]

What I am advocating for is an intelligent discussion of the real issues.

No, you're not. You will only accept discussions on how to reform/expand the immoral practice of collectivism already established through forced altruism.

In this case, it is totally valid. Ranting and name calling has taken the place of rational debate.

Pelosi said the protesters were nazi's. I don't think its unreasonable to point out that her beliefs are the ones in line with the Fascists.

No, pragmatism is finding that ideology doesn't always solve real world problems.

You've already admitted that pragmatism requires the rejection of ideological principles. Pragmatism is an un-principled approach to problem solving.

When those principals were formed, there was no modern health care.

Is "modern" a magic word? There were doctors, healthcare, hospitals, medicine, etc. at the founding of our country, they were all considered to be "modern" at the time. Principles are timeless and do not expire with the "progress" of society. Your comments are absurd, allow me to demonstrate:

The principles that established your freedom of speech were formed before "modern" forms of communication, television, radio, internet... perhaps we should discard such principles as being outdated given the "progress" that's taken place in society.

Surely you see the absurdity in that example but somehow I feel you will fail to see how its equally applicable to the case of Healthcare... which is not a right.

Yes, you or your heirs can sue, that is true. Of course, nuisance suits also raise the cost for everyone.

Which is why I'm an advocate for Torte Reform. Still, who will you sue when you get a HC ins. claim rejected by the Gov? Nobody. You're screwed.

If Douglas Elmendorf says so, then we need to take a good look at what is actually in HR 3200, and then perhaps reject it in favor of the Senate bill, or something else.

The senate bill is just as bad... as the CBO will tell you.

Now who's twisting whose words around?

The "public option" will lead to single payer. Do you consider that a statement of historical fact or a fallacious slippery slope argument?

Government ownership of banks, ins. companies, auto makers etc., constitute socialism. Is that a statement of fact or do you still maintain that there can be no socialism until the Government owns 100% of all private industry?

Fascist economics is the government using mandates and regulations to control privately owned industries. Is that statement applicable to our "mixed" economy or is any mention of Fascist economic policy to be ignored and discounted?

OK, if you'll quit engaging in it, I'll quit complaining about it. How's that?

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, so I'm not engaging in it. When I point to things as being Fascist or Socialist, I'm not doing so to engage in name calling, I'm making a legitimate point by comparing the facts of the situations.

Then it's OK to call Ivan Jones a communist, Carol Browner a socialist, and Cass Sunstien a nutcase. Wups, I forgot. That has nothing to do with health care.

You didn't think there were Communists and Socialists in high level positions of our government, you were proven wrong. You think talk about Obamacare leading to such things as Rationing and Death panels are absurd, prepare to be proven wrong once again:

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama:

"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." - Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)

"Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others." - June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA

"Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." - (JAMA, May 16, 2007)

"the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." - (JAMA, June 18, 2008)

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," - New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002

"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." - (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated" - The Lancet, January 31, 2009

The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.

That's the guy steering the HC reform. Be afraid, be very afraid.

You might think that there should be no public option at all, no Medicare or Medicaid, for example. When you yourself get to the medicare age, you will change your mind, I guarantee it.

You are wrong. #1, I am against it on the Federal Level, if individual states want to have such social safety nets, then according to our constitution, it is their right to do so. #2, John Galt said it best: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." As the Libertarians say... Live free or die. I would rather die than chain myself, or be chained, to the collective.

There is no other option for seniors, none, zippo. No private insurance is going to take on the most expensive demographic.

Look at what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, has to say about taking care of the elderly with state funds. I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism and under such a system, an individual looks to friends, family, churches and charity for assistance rather than the government... a government who doesn't value the life of an elderly individual as highly as those who are "participating citizens" and therefore treats the elderly with far less compassion and with less regard then their family, friends and private charities would.

Wow! Here, I thought the argument against allowing people who can't pay to simply die was a straw man. I guess it isn't after all.

It is a strawman to suggest I want people who can't afford care to die in the street. They do have options, government is not the only option.

As outlined above, they would get much better care if left to friends, family and charity than they would if we placed them in the care of government bureaucrats and we wouldn't be mortgaging the lives, liberty and freedom of generations not yet born by way of an ever expanding national debt.

I am all for enacting HC reforms that reduce government control over the HC industry and return it to a system where there is no middle man, be it the Ins. Company or government, and enacting laws that encourage healthcare providers to offer their services to those who cannot afford to pay. For instance, a doctor could write off any care he provides, to those who cannot afford to pay, from his taxes - up to a certain amount.

I offer solutions that are based squarely on ideological principle, they are workable, they are sustainable, and they place power back in the hands of individuals rather than government.

 

[PLC1]

It is a strawman to suggest I want people who can't afford care to die in the street. They do have options, government is not the only option.

The options are, what then? To die at home? The reality is that you still haven't addressed the issue of the fact that people with health issues or who are simply in the older demographic can't get private insurance and can't pay as they go. When you post that health care is not a right, that means that some simply won't get health care, period.

The other big elephant in the room is the fact that those who pay as they go, i.e., don't have health insurance, pay what the market will bear. The insured pay a negotiated price, which is actually about 1/2 to 1/3 as much. A big part of the reason is health care providers making up for treating people who can't pay.

As outlined above, they would get much better care if left to friends, family and charity than they would if we placed them in the care of government bureaucrats and we wouldn't be mortgaging the lives, liberty and freedom of generations not yet born by way of an ever expanding national debt.

Yet, the reality is that a simple medical test can run easily 20 grand for the uninsured. The insured pay a still whopping 8 or 9 hundred. Are friends and family to pay for the overwhelming costs by holding a car wash, as many do to pay for funerals? A rest home costs around $5 grand a month. If the spouse of someone who winds up in a rest home is living on that much, how does he/she live? Are we to make up the difference by having car washes and fund raising dinners? That must be your solution, if you don't like pragmatism, otherwise known as practicality or realism.

What is wrong with the government establishing a group plan than anyone can buy into, that will pay the catastrophic costs of long illnesses, and will negotiate a price with providers?

I am all for enacting HC reforms that reduce government control over the HC industry and return it to a system where there is no middle man, be it the Ins. Company or government, and enacting laws that encourage healthcare providers to offer their services to those who cannot afford to pay. For instance, a doctor could write off any care he provides, to those who cannot afford to pay, from his taxes - up to a certain amount.

I offer solutions that are based squarely on ideological principle, they are workable, they are sustainable, and they place power back in the hands of individuals rather than government.

That sounds really good on paper, but in the real world what it will result in is health care plans being hyped on TV or by telemarketing that won't really cover health care needs. What we'll see are plans that only cover certain types of illnesses. We'll see "cancer insurance" for example, or insurance that pays a few hundred a day if you're in the hospital.

Sometimes the ideology that government is always bad and inefficient, while private industry is always good and efficient doesn't work in the real world.

While I'm on the subject, let's get those annoying ads for prescription drugs off of the airwaves, and use the money they cost for R and D, what do you say?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would like to give the Citizen of the Week award to David Hedrick for the following:

I, David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that I was not going to be silent anymore. So, I let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it. I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy.

So....he all-of-a-sudden decided "not to be silent anymore", huh?

I'd have assumed that was the reason he'd gone to such a gathering, in the first place....and, should have been better-prepared, before-hand.

"Not expecting to be called on..", he "...quickly scratched what he wanted to say..", with all kinds of borrowed materials, huh?

Nah....I don't buy it. I think a trained-Prosecutor would easily leave him a wimpering-slob, in a corner, somewhere.

​

 

[GenSeneca]

Healthcare is a Right? Rights are freedoms of action, not a guarentee for goods or services to be provided to you at the expense of someone else. You can't make healthcare a right, what you can do is make it an entitlement by saying someone else will provide care for you or pay for you to have care provided. Such entitlements require government to use its monopoly on force to make slaves of those capable of providing what ever it is you feel entitled to receive.

The options are, what then?

In your view, government is the only option? What is it government can do that that people cannot? Print money out of thin air? Use its monopoly of force to "legally" force others to absord the costs you incur? Use its threat of force to enslave healthcare providers to work for limited or no compensation?

That must be your solution, if you don't like pragmatism, otherwise known as practicality or realism.

Is racking up never ending debt practicle and realistic? Is leveraging the futures of generations not yet born, through debt, to pay for the needs of those currently living a realistic and practical model for healthcare?

What is wrong with the government establishing a group plan than anyone can buy into, that will pay the catastrophic costs of long illnesses, and will negotiate a price with providers?

What is wrong with using the governemnt to remove the mandates and regulations currently placed on HC ins providers that prevent the public from doing that same thing with private insurance companies?

That sounds really good on paper, but in the real world what it will result in is health care plans being hyped on TV or by telemarketing that won't really cover health care needs.

Your "pragmatic" appraoch is the one that sounds good on paper, just like all socialism sounds good on paper. Collectivism doesn't work. Government forced altruism doesn't work. How many examples of this lesson learned from history will it take before you learn from the mistakes of others and realize that following the same path will lead to the same result?

Sometimes the ideology that government is always bad and inefficient, while private industry is always good and efficient doesn't work in the real world.

What ideology is that, Anarchy? Certainly not an ideology I support or espouse.

While I'm on the subject, let's get those annoying ads for prescription drugs off of the airwaves, and use the money they cost for R and D, what do you say?

Glad you brought up R&D. One of your usual bromides is that we spend more on HC than any other nation in the world. We spend more money on a lot of things than any other nation in the world but so far your only complaint about that regards HC and the Military. If its bad to spend more than the rest of the world in those two areas, why is good to do the same in others?

R&D is a huge expenditure for HC and countries that have gone to the system you wish to see enacted here in the states have very little in the area of R&D for new drugs, machines, and proceedures. The vast majority of medical breakthroughs take place here in the states, where we spend more on R&D, and the cost of that is passed along to the American consumer.

 

[PLC1]

Healthcare is a Right? Rights are freedoms of action, not a guarentee for goods or services to be provided to you at the expense of someone else. You can't make healthcare a right, what you can do is make it an entitlement by saying someone else will provide care for you or pay for you to have care provided. Such entitlements require government to use its monopoly on force to make slaves of those capable of providing what ever it is you feel entitled to receive.

If health care is not a right, then it follows that some people won't have access to it. If you're ready for a society in which some people don't get modern medicine, then your philosophy will work. Everyone pays his/her own way, or does without.

There is no right to own a TV, a car, a boat, or a computer, so those who can't afford those things do without. There is nothing wrong with that. Since health care is not a right, those who can't afford it do without. If the rest of us can't stand to see people dying of treatable illnesses, then it is up to us to pay for them through charity.

That philosophy is quite consistent, it is ideologically pure, and it would most certainly result in people dying and suffering disabilities that could be treated by modern medicine. It would no doubt save money.

In your view, government is the only option? What is it government can do that that people cannot? Print money out of thin air? Use its monopoly of force to "legally" force others to absord the costs you incur? Use its threat of force to enslave healthcare providers to work for limited or no compensation?

Every other country in the world has government sponsored universal health care except the US. They all pay less than we do, every last one. They have rationing, we have rationing. There is no free lunch, nor is there unlimited care. That is the reality.

Is racking up never ending debt practicle and realistic? Is leveraging the futures of generations not yet born, through debt, to pay for the needs of those currently living a realistic and practical model for healthcare?

Racking up never ending debt is what has been happening for several years now, and no, it is not practical nor is it sustainable. The cost of health care has also been going up much faster than the rate of inflation. That isn't practical, nor is it sustainable.

Every other nation in the world.. you know the rest.

What is wrong with using the governemnt to remove the mandates and regulations currently placed on HC ins providers that prevent the public from doing that same thing with private insurance companies?

Sure, sure. Let's remove government mandates and regulations. While we're at it, let's deregulate the meat industry. The situation described in Sinclair's The Jungle is plenty good enough, and good for the bottom line. Let's deregulate the mortgage industry, and the S and L, and the energy suppliers.... hey, we did that already, didn't we?

Government regulations are inevitable. They are also necessary much of the time.

Your "pragmatic" appraoch is the one that sounds good on paper, just like all socialism sounds good on paper. Collectivism doesn't work. Government forced altruism doesn't work. How many examples of this lesson learned from history will it take before you learn from the mistakes of others and realize that following the same path will lead to the same result?

I'm not advocating altruism, nor socialism.

Socialized medicine is what they have in Spain. Doctors there work for the provincial governments. Their government runs the hospitals. Their cost per person is about a third of ours.

Of course, no one is suggesting that doctors become federal or state employees in the US.

What ideology is that, Anarchy? Certainly not an ideology I support or espouse.

Good. Then you know that the government is necessary.

Glad you brought up R&D. One of your usual bromides is that we spend more on HC than any other nation in the world. We spend more money on a lot of things than any other nation in the world but so far your only complaint about that regards HC and the Military. If its bad to spend more than the rest of the world in those two areas, why is good to do the same in others?

Is it good in other areas? In what areas should we spend more than any other nation?

R&D is a huge expenditure for HC and countries that have gone to the system you wish to see enacted here in the states have very little in the area of R&D for new drugs, machines, and proceedures. The vast majority of medical breakthroughs take place here in the states, where we spend more on R&D, and the cost of that is passed along to the American consumer.

I'd be willing to bet that the pharmaceutical companies spend more for advertising than they do for R and D.

And, not all of the medical breakthroughs are the result of R and D in the US. Canada, for example is now testing an AIDS vaccine. There was a thread about it on this forum not long ago.

Nor is there any credible evidence that reforming health care and making insurance available to everyone would limit R and D. What is the connection there?

 

[PLC1]

OMG, I was right again.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 7, 2008) — A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

The very first hit from typing "how much do the pharmaceuticals spend on advertising" in to the search window.

It's getting monotonous now. I haven't been wrong since I voted for Lyndon Johnson in '64.

 

[Dr.Who]

If health care is not a right, then it follows that some people won't have access to it. If you're ready for a society in which some people don't get modern medicine, then your philosophy will work. Everyone pays his/her own way, or does without.

No need to say "if". It is not a right. Not in the sense that gov must provide it. It is a right in the sense that everyone must be allowed to pursue it.

But the conclusions is wrong. WE can provide health care to every american one way or another. We just can't do it with a federal program right now.

Ways we could do it:

- Amend the fed constitution
-Each state provides it if their constitutions allow or they amend them
-The great majority of citizens who can afford their own health care or insurance donate to charities to provide for the small minority (less than 5%) that cannot. By eliminating entitlement programs the small minority shrinks even more making it easier to provide for them.
-Only conservatives donate because we already state we believe in that.
-Only libs donate because they are the ones complaining.
Both donate because we all care.

In fact if all the effort spend trying to pass UHC were spend on donations the problem would already be solved.

There is no right to own a TV, a car, a boat, or a computer, so those who can't afford those things do without. There is nothing wrong with that. Since health care is not a right, those who can't afford it do without. If the rest of us can't stand to see people dying of treatable illnesses, then it is up to us to pay for them through charity.

Not to many people think it is very important that every one have a tv set so they don't donate them much. Though tvs are donated. And just about everybody except the homeless have them.

That philosophy is quite consistent, it is ideologically pure, and it would most certainly result in people dying and suffering disabilities that could be treated by modern medicine. It would no doubt save money.

No certainty about it.

If only the libs donated there would be plenty of money.

Total medicaid spending was $319,676,945,585. I was not able to determine how much of that was welfare checks and how much was medical care. Lets assume half. Divide that number by the 300 mil Americans and it costs us each about $500 per year - or less than $50 per month.

Every other country in the world has government sponsored universal health care except the US. They all pay less than we do, every last one. They have rationing, we have rationing. There is no free lunch, nor is there unlimited care. That is the reality.

Except the data showing that they all spend less than we do is questionable.

 

[PLC1]

No need to say "if". It is not a right. Not in the sense that gov must provide it. It is a right in the sense that everyone must be allowed to pursue it.

But the conclusions is wrong. WE can provide health care to every american one way or another. We just can't do it with a federal program right now.

Ways we could do it:

- Amend the fed constitution
-Each state provides it if their constitutions allow or they amend them
-The great majority of citizens who can afford their own health care or insurance donate to charities to provide for the small minority (less than 5%) that cannot. By eliminating entitlement programs the small minority shrinks even more making it easier to provide for them.
-Only conservatives donate because we already state we believe in that.
-Only libs donate because they are the ones complaining.
Both donate because we all care.

In fact if all the effort spend trying to pass UHC were spend on donations the problem would already be solved.

Do you envision telephone fund raisers, car washes, dinners, and the like raising enough money to make up for what the government spends already on health care?

Or, are you saying that the states should be the ones running a UHC system in each state?

That second option might work. There is no way the first ever would.

Not to many people think it is very important that every one have a tv set so they don't donate them much. Though tvs are donated. And just about everybody except the homeless have them.

Right. None of the above is a matter of life and death, nor are they particularly costly.

No certainty about it.
If only the libs donated there would be plenty of money.

It is absolutely certain. If there were no public options, and many of us are already covered by public options, then there would be no way that charity could provide enough money nor could they negotiate prices with providers. We're talking about nearly as much money as the federal government spends, about 17% of the GDP. Even if everyone who disagrees with you considered themselves "libs" and donated half their salaries... well maybe then, but it isn't going to happen.

Total medicaid spending was $319,676,945,585. I was not able to determine how much of that was welfare checks and how much was medical care. Lets assume half. Divide that number by the 300 mil Americans and it costs us each about $500 per year - or less than $50 per month.

Medicaid is money for health care for the indigent. None of it is used for welfare checks, and not everyone is covered by Medicaid. The biggest problem isn't the uninsured nor the indigent, but those who have insurance that doesn't cover needed care. No, I take that back. That's the second biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there are many who can't buy insurance at any price, that and the fact that the uninsured pay much more than the insured.

Except the data showing that they all spend less than we do is questionable.

Really? Do you have some figures showing that other nations actually spend more than they say?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you envision telephone fund raisers, car washes, dinners, and the like raising enough money to make up for what the government spends already on health care?

I do envision private charity based fundraisers. They tend to be a lot more sophisticated that car washes.

Or, are you saying that the states should be the ones running a UHC system in each state?

If the state constitution allows for it and the fed does not force the state to run it then I could not make the argument that it is unconstitutional.

That second option might work. There is no way the first ever would.

The federal public aid program spends 319,676,945,585 per year. I am guessing that half of that is on welfare checks and half is on medical expenses (159,838,472,792). Divide half of that by the number of people in this country (300, 000,000) and then by 12 months and you get less than $50 per person per month.

I am very willing to bet that private charities raise more than that every year proving it is very possible. I just looked it up, total charitable giving is 300,000,000,000 or about twice the public aid medical budget. I have no doubt that private charity could reduce the amount of money wasted (given to people who could work and pay for their own insurance or care), and collect more as soon as people diverted money from the save a cat foundation to the help a human foundation and diverted money from their taxes.

Right. None of the above is a matter of life and death, nor are they particularly costly.

The american people are smart. They know not to donate to the give-a-tv foundation but they would love to give to the help a cancer victim foundation. They also object to the public aid option because they know it is not administered well.

It is absolutely certain. If there were no public options, and many of us are already covered by public options, then there would be no way that charity could provide enough money nor could they negotiate prices with providers. We're talking about nearly as much money as the federal government spends, about 17% of the GDP. Even if everyone who disagrees with you considered themselves "libs" and donated half their salaries... well maybe then, but it isn't going to happen.

We are talking about $50 per person per month for public aid medical. And as soon as a wealthy person made a large donation which they do do, then the average amount would fall hugely.

We are not talking about medicare because all of the money in the pool was put there by the people taking it out (ponzi schemes aside). Clearly they could have put it into a different non-gov pool.

Medicaid is money for health care for the indigent. None of it is used for welfare checks, and not everyone is covered by Medicaid. The biggest problem isn't the uninsured nor the indigent, but those who have insurance that doesn't cover needed care. No, I take that back. That's the second biggest problem. The biggest problem is that there are many who can't buy insurance at any price, that and the fact that the uninsured pay much more than the insured.

The public aid/medicaid system in Ill provides three kinds of benefits: checks, insurance and rent. It is probably about the same in all states since the fed tells them what to do.

The unisured pay more than the insured? I don't get it.

Can't by insurance at any price? Then they qualify for public aid.

Have insurance that does not cover needs? Then they pay out of pocket or appeal to public aid.



Really? Do you have some figures showing that other nations actually spend more than they say?[/QUOTE]

Figures? No. But we do know that France pays tuition for medical students. How much do you suppose that is? What else do they pay for in separate books? Will it make up the reported difference between the US and France?

France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%. Take the number of doctors graduating in France and see if that increases the budget by 5.3%. France is a pretty small country. I bet the average cost of medical school multiplied times the number of students is more than 5.5% of the GDP. If not then look to the other hidden costs - if you can find them.

 

[PLC1]

The unisured pay more than the insured? I don't get it.

Ever get an EOMB form (Explanation of Medical Benefits) from your insurance company? Next time you do, check out the amount the insurance paid, + your share vs. the amount billed.

Can't by insurance at any price? Then they qualify for public aid.

But, isn't public aid what you want to end? Furthermore, no, they can't get public aid always. If they're welfare drones, then they can. If they work for low wages, then they can't.

Have insurance that does not cover needs? Then they pay out of pocket or appeal to public aid.

Really? Pay, how much out of pocket? Half a mil or so for a serious illness/accident? I think you're giving charity a job it can't handle.

Figures? No. But we do know that France pays tuition for medical students. How much do you suppose that is? What else do they pay for in separate books? Will it make up the reported difference between the US and France?

France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%. Take the number of doctors graduating in France and see if that increases the budget by 5.3%. France is a pretty small country. I bet the average cost of medical school multiplied times the number of students is more than 5.5% of the GDP. If not then look to the other hidden costs - if you can find them.

Figures? No, we don't need no stinkin' figures! Why, there nothing but a lot of dull, dreary facts. Death panels and euthanasia are a lot more fun to talk about.

I seriously doubt that the figures will add up to anything like 16% of the GDP. Sure, medical school is expensive, but it is nothing like a major part of medical care costs. The difference between 10.7% (your figure, I've heard a lot lower) and 16% (which is low) is around 50%.

 

[GenSeneca]

Every other country in the world has government sponsored universal health care except the US.

But MOM... All the other kids are doing it!

Is your statement that we're the only ones not offering tax payer subsidized healthcare a serious attempt at an argument? Its nothing more than the herd instinct, a bandwagon fallacy and a fallacy of argument by consensus.

Racking up never ending debt is what has been happening for several years now, and no, it is not practical nor is it sustainable.

That's precisely what you're defending as pragmatic and that's what your seeking to expand: the welfare state.

The cost of health care has also been going up much faster than the rate of inflation. That isn't practical, nor is it sustainable.

The primary driving force behind our ever increasing HC costs is the third party payer system. Period. Eliminate, or strictly limit, the use of third party payment in HC and the prices will tumble.

Is auto insurance too expensive? If government mandated that your auto insurance cover everything related to your automobile (every tank of gas, every blown tire, every broken belt, every drop of windshield washer fluid, every car wash, etc.) in the same way government has mandated, and regulated, HC insurance to cover every possible expense, then cost of auto insurance too would quickly skyrocket and continue to become more costly.

Sure, sure. Let's remove government mandates and regulations. While we're at it, let's deregulate the meat industry. The situation described in Sinclair's The Jungle is plenty good enough, and good for the bottom line. Let's deregulate the mortgage industry, and the S and L, and the energy suppliers.... hey, we did that already, didn't we?

That entire rant was an immature and obnoxious attempt at a red herring...

Who would have ever guessed you'd turn out to be a cheerleader for the Welfare state?

Government regulations are inevitable. They are also necessary much of the time.

No, they're not.

But Don't Businesses Need to be 'Regulated'?

I'm not advocating altruism, nor socialism.

You're advocating for COLLECTIVISM:

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.

Socialized medicine is what they have in Spain.

Then I'll refer to your "Pragmatic" solution of a "public option" or "single payer" as Collectivist Medicine, because that's what it is.

Of course, no one is suggesting that doctors become federal or state employees in the US.

Give it time. Once your plan of expanding the third party payer system results in ever increasing costs, despite the inevitable rationing, the last resort will be to make HC professionals slaves to the state... for the common good of course.

Good. Then you know that the government is necessary.

Government is necessary and its proper role is the protection of our individual rights. You are arguing that governments role is to abrogate the individual rights of people when the collective deems it necessary and do so for the "greater good" of society.

I'd be willing to bet that the pharmaceutical companies spend more for advertising than they do for R and D.

And your point is what? That you, or government, have a mythical "right" to tell private companies how to run their business? That if they didn't spend that money on advertising they could charge less for their product or spend more on R&D?

Start your own pharmaceutical company and run it as you see fit.

And, not all of the medical breakthroughs are the result of R and D in the US.

I never claimed they were but keep swinging at those strawmen... For someone who complains about people shadowboxing with such fictional constructs as death panels, you certainly do your share of it.

Nor is there any credible evidence that reforming health care and making insurance available to everyone would limit R and D. What is the connection there?

Two problems with your statement...

1. Your use of the word "reform". I have offered several reforms that are the polar opposite of the reforms you support. You should specify the "reform" you're talking about... perhaps by referring to the reforms you support as Collectivist Medicine in order to eliminate any ambiguity.

2. Healthcare is already "available" to everyone. You're problem with the current system is not its availability but its affordability. Not everyone can afford the healthcare they need.

Your solutions don't actually bring down the cost of providing the necessary healthcare, they simply shift the costs onto the taxpayer (increasing deficits and debts) through subsidies, they ration available care and "negotiate" with providers to pay less for medicine and procedures than the actual cost of the care received.