Another strike against Obama's health care plan

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:
It's not about "killing" versus "healing".

No, it pretty much is. You can dress it up however you like, but the fact remains that many many Americans trust their government's decision to put people to death, but not to own and operate a healthcare system that is open to all, regardless of financial status. There's something wrong there.

No, it's pretty much not.

Do you think absolutely everything should be done by the government? They should drive your car for you, and brush your teeth for you? Because those things are quite a bit less severe than being put in prison for life, and the government should make everything less severe than that it's duty?

Of course not. You can debate the specific merits of the ideas put forth, but you can't just say that simply because the government can arrest people it can and should do everything else under the sun.

It's about one person's relation to others. If I want to hire a "police officer" proxy to arrest myself, and imprison myself, that's fine (although it makes no sense to do so), and if I want to hire a doctor to perform surgery on unwilling patients that isn't.

I'm not attacking you mate, but this makes no sense. When did anyone mention performing surgery on unwilling patients? I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

No one mentioned it, I'm just saying that it would be illegal. You can have something done to yourself, you can have something done to others if they consent to it, but you can't take it upon yourself to do things to others that they don't want done to them, generally speaking.

The difference isn't simply one of punishment versus healing, because you cannot personally force your neighbor to follow your exercise plan because you think it's best for him any more than you can personally force your neighbor to give you $300 for messing with your TV. In either case the government must arbitrate for something to be done (although I would argue the government would be acting injustly if it forced your neighbor to abide by your exercise program), because it's a dispute between the two of you.

(You can give him advise for his health, of course, or request that he pays you the damages he owes you, but that's different from threatening to beat him up or something.)

**dogma**

Albatross wrote:
How's that working out for you?

I think your statement (even if there was a hint of sarcasm) kind of sums up the problem with the mentality of SOME (key word!) americans.

You trust your government to KILL, but not to HEAL.

The monopoly on violence is a fundamental principle underlying the concept of the nation-state. Without it the contemporary, geopolitical order would fall apart.

**Albatross**

Do you think absolutely everything should be done by the government? They should drive your car for you, and brush your teeth for you? Because those things are quite a bit less severe than being put in prison for life, and the government should make everything less severe than that it's duty?

No, but they put out fires for you, fight wars for you, educate your children (up to a point), The DMV is state-controlled, adoption agencies, intelligence agencies... the state has a fairly big say in your life - they tell you when (and how, and with whom - depending on the state) you're allowed to have sex, own a gun, consume alchohol, get married, smoke cigarettes, gamble...

But providing universal free healthcare to those people who WANT it? No, that would infringe upon your 'Freedom' (tm).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Dogma - Yeah, I get that - but doesn't that principle fall down when the citizens of a country are allowed to bear arms? Where's the monopoly?

**dogma**

LunaHound wrote:
Just wondering , who pays for the $289 billion?

The people living in America. Its hard to say exactly where extra costs would materialize without looking at a detailed account of the plan, or actually putting it into affect.

Albatross wrote:
@Dogma - Yeah, I get that - but doesn't that principle fall down when the citizens of a country are allowed to bear arms? Where's the monopoly?

No. The state still retains the right to regulate the use of weaponry. Simply possessing a gun does not render one a violent actor any more than the ability to make a fist does.

**Orkeosaurus**

Albatross wrote:

Do you think absolutely everything should be done by the government? They should drive your car for you, and brush your teeth for you? Because those things are quite a bit less severe than being put in prison for life, and the government should make everything less severe than that it's duty?

No, but they put out fires for you,

And I said universal healthcare would better be compared to the fire departments than police. So what's the issue?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put this another way: you can have police without a national healthcare system, but you can't have a national healthcare system without a police force. Actually, I would say you can't have a nation of any sort without a police force, unless the nation's army doubled as one, or something like that.

So you can see why they would be on different levels of importance.

**Major Malfunction**

avantgarde wrote:That's funny because when they did a recent poll asking who people would vote for, McCain or Obama, now that they have a year's hindsight. People overwhelmingly said they would for Obama.

Source please. Where can I find this poll?

Albatross wrote:Could someone explain why so many Americans are opposed to healthcare reform/universal healthcare?

It's fairly simple: in it's current form the legislation proposed is a naked power grab that pushes our already precarious economy over the edge. The half a Trillion in proposed savings due to reduced Medicare and Medicaid will never materialize and the other half a Trillion in new taxes will drive our nation into an already deeper economic pit than we are in now.

Personally I'm not for a system that requires no accountability on the part of the recipient to attempt to be healthy. As soon as you put in piss tests to see if the health care freeloader is using illegal drugs or abusing alcohol or tobacco then you might get my support, but there's none of that. It's not fair to ask me to fork out for a triple bypass for some dumb bastard who clogs his own arteries with Big Macs and cigarettes.

Hell, you can't even get our Congress to put in explicit language that would limit this health care system to legal US Citizens only.

**Fateweaver**

Maybe it's also due to the fact many Americans would prefer the Feds sticking their noses into our live less than they do now and not more.

No offense but while it may be kosher that the British government controls the vast majority of your lives over there and what you can or cannot do it is not what the US was founded on. The US was founded on the fact that the government is only as powerful as we make it. It is why pro-choicers, pro-gun activists and others that oppose government control in everything get so hot under the collar whenever our Overlord and his administration start proposing MORE laws.

Not saying we shouldn't have a government but the aforementioned people want LESS government control, not more.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:True, but a large part of a president's job is to create and instill vision that others are willing to follow. It seems all Obama has for the most part are pie in the sky promises that when examined have little or no grounding in common sense or reality.

Previous healthcare reform efforts have never made it out of committee, but that has happened in both houses, and the House of Reps has even successfully voted on healthcare. Meanwhile there's people complaining about healthcare reform moving too fast, and other people complaining that Obama hasn't done anything.

So he's not doing anything, but he's doing it too fast. It's all quite ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:Albatross: From what I understand, people disagree with the details of this particular reform.

Except that there were protest groups turning up to make as big a noise as possible before the specific reforms of any healthcare bill were ever even formed.

The Republicans were coming off the back of a bad president and a stomping in the 2008 elections. They lacked leadership and had no message. The Democrats were looking to advance healthcare reform, so that become the issue for the Republicans to reform around.

So we got all kinds of concerns and worries about death panels and the hopeless inefficiency of the (cheaper and more effective) healthcare systems of the UK and Canada.

There are concerns with this piece of reform, as there would be with any piece of reform. Those specific concerns have nothing to do with the cirucus we've seen.

**Wrexasaur**

sebster wrote:So he's not doing anything, but he's doing it too fast. It's all quite ridiculous.

Is it possible to jump up while sitting down? Apparently yes... and supposedly Obama is the master of this technique

.

I call it the shadow handed, sitting dragon punch

.

There are concerns with this piece of reform, as there would be with any piece of reform. Those specific concerns have nothing to do with the cirucus we've seen.

They all float down here...

**ShumaGorath**

This country will get the brutally fethed up health care package that it deserves. If it couldn't drop the ridiculous partisan rhetoric for something so monumental as salvaging healthcare and thus the U.S. economy then it doesn't deserve it. America deserves to fail this, just so it can learn about humility and controlling sensationalist yellow media and uneducated douchebaggery.

And mark my words, whether it passes a horrifically compromised bill or nothing at all, it will fail this.

**IntoTheRain**

I have decided that Fateweaver needs an opposite who gets to make blind, baseless attacks on conservatives so I have volunteered to step in.

Fateweaver wrote:Maybe it's also due to the fact many Americans would prefer the Feds sticking their noses into our live less than they do now and not more.

No offense but while it may be kosher that the British government controls the vast majority of your lives over there and what you can or cannot do it is not what the US was founded on. The US was founded on the fact that the government is only as powerful as we make it. It is why pro-choicers, pro-gun activists and others that oppose government control in everything get so hot under the collar whenever our Overlord and his administration start proposing MORE laws.

Not saying we shouldn't have a government but the aforementioned people want LESS government control, not more.

This pretty much sums up Republicans. They rely on Xenophobia, Paranoia, and Nationalism to push their agenda by taking advantage of the most uneducated people they can find.

They have literally convinced people that Medical Care = Big Brother.

Oh, and they know better than you do that the system in Great Britain doesn't work. Just because the people are happier with it, live healthier lives, at a lower cost per capita, does not mean universal health care works damnit!

**Albatross**

@IntoTheRain - I especially loved the part about 'making sure only US citizens get access to it' or some such guff. So you'd make foreign visitors pay for it? Wow, remind me never to come to YOUR house for tea, Fateweaver!

@Fateweaver, Universal Healthcare is not 'the government controlling your life'. Living in Manchester, I have a choice of 5 NHS hospitals IIRC (and a couple of private ones), and literally hundreds of GPs, dentists, Psychiatrists, Podiatrists, Chiropodists, Chiropractors - hell, even Alternative Therapists! I am not obliged to use any in particular - how am I being controlled? Add the fact that treatment is either free or easily affordable, and it all amounts to a pretty sweet deal, however you slice it. Even people who PAY for prescriptions only pay £7.50 per item.

**Kilkrazy**

Relapse wrote:Something I'm curious about is if people trying to be doctors in Europe have to pay for their own schooling or if it is for the most part taken care of by the government.
If it is payed for, do they have to honor an agreement to be a doctor for a certain number of years?
Probably totaly naive and silly questions, but It'd be interesting to know the answers.

As far as I know, European governments sponsor their university students in all disciplines including medicine. Sponsorship may not be 100% of fees.

There's no requirement in the UK to work as a doctor after graduation.

The overwhelming majority of people who complete the course go on to become doctors because that's why they joined the course. It takes five years to become minimally qualified, so there is plenty of time to change your mind and course if you want to, after which you have to do several years OJT to become properly qualified.

It would be counter-productive to force highly educated people to work at complex, responsible jobs they aren't committed to.

**reds8n**

Albatross wrote:@IntoTheRain - I especially loved the part about 'making sure only US citizens get access to it' or some such guff. So you'd make foreign visitors pay for it? .

That's how it is supposed to work in most countries with "Universal" healthcare, in the UK EU citizens are covered through arrangements by the various Govts. of Europe.

Given the geographical situation of the USA I don't think it's unreasonable to have some provision with regards to who gets what.

That said...I would assume that people are largely excluding emergency treatment in accidents and so on here.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, I'd agree with Reds8n there. Aside from emergency care, why should someone from another country get access?

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
The government is required to have a monopoly on violence

How's that working out for you?

I think your statement (even if there was a hint of sarcasm) kind of sums up the problem with the mentality of SOME (key word!) americans.

You trust your government to KILL, but not to HEAL.

Your posts are veering hard towards trolling on Americans. You might want to rethink how you are posting here, lest this be construed as trolling.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

IntoTheRain wrote:I have decided that Fateweaver needs an opposite who gets to make blind, baseless attacks on conservatives so I have volunteered to step in.
you mean other than Sebster, Shuma, Redy, warcrafter, Cane, and to a lesser extent Dogma right?

"Baseful" attacks do so much better...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
Albatross wrote:@IntoTheRain - I especially loved the part about 'making sure only US citizens get access to it' or some such guff. So you'd make foreign visitors pay for it? .

That's how it is supposed to work in most countries with "Universal" healthcare, in the UK EU citizens are covered through arrangements by the various Govts. of Europe.

Given the geographical situation of the USA I don't think it's unreasonable to have some provision with regards to who gets what.

That said...I would assume that people are largely excluding emergency treatment in accidents and so on here.

the fundamental difference between UK and US on this issue is that there are between 12MM and 20MM illegal aliens living in the US. Its hard to justify cutting Medicare to old people who put in their time for foreigners who broke the law, came here illegally, and won't leave.

**Albatross**

@Reds8n - I have an American friend who is entitled to free healthcare in the UK, and remains a US citizen - she's a student though. Maybe there's some sort of exemption.

@Frazzled - So I'm not allowed to criticise anyone who happens to be American or a section of American society?
How Un-American of you. that's practically Stalinist.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - as long as people on here make Anti-British jibes about our healthcare, dentistry, socialism, our military or our 'big-brother' surveilance system - I'll continue to voice my opinions on the things America gets wrong, along with many Americans. That doesn't make me Anti-American.

**reds8n**

I believe that is indeed the case

Who is entitled to free NHS treatment?
NHS treatment that is always free
In the UK, medical treatment for emergencies is always free. Certain other parts of medical care in Britain are always free to everyone. Treatment from certain NHS walk-in centres (which offer fast and convenient medical advice and care, and are located at various places around the country) is free when they are treating an emergency. Treatment for certain infectious diseases is also free, but this does not include HIV and AIDS, for which only diagnosis and connected counselling sessions are free for everyone. Family planning services and compulsory psychiatric treatment are universally free.

Free NHS treatment from a GP
People who are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK are entitled to register with (and be seen by) a GP for free. An ‘ordinary resident’ is usually considered to be someone who has legally been in the UK (or is planning to be in UK) for six months or more, and can prove that they are here for a settled purpose – for instance, they may be studying or working in the UK.

The rules around who GPs should treat for free are fairly flexible. A GP can choose to register overseas visitors as temporary residents, or, if they are in the UK for longer than three months, accept them onto their lists. Technically this could apply to failed asylum seekers or immigrants, although this is left down to the decision of the individual GP. If a GP decides not to register an overseas visitor or treat them as a temporary resident, they can still treat that individual on a private basis, but this means that they will be charged.

Nationals of countries that are part of the European Economic Area (EEA), and who are carrying a European Health Insurance Card, are entitled to the same level of GP care that UK residents get, for conditions that arise during their stay. This includes on-going medical treatment, such as blood tests or injections.

In addition, asylum seekers or refugees who have been given leave to remain in the UK, or are awaiting results of an application to remain in the country, are eligible for free GP treatment.

Free NHS treatment at hospitals
Even if you’re entitled to free GP treatment in the UK, medical treatment from hospitals will not necessarily be free, unless your condition is considered to be an emergency. You can receive NHS hospital treatment for free if:

You’ve been living legally in the UK for at least 12 months (temporary absences of up to 3 months are ignored).
You’ve come to work in the UK, either as an employee or self-employed person. This does not include people on short business trips, and it only relates to people who are actually working, not just looking for work.
You’ve come to permanently live in the UK, and have had an application for permanent residence approved.
You’re studying in the UK on a course that lasts 6 months or more, or which, if it lasts less than 6 months, is substantially funded by the UK government.
You’re a refugee or asylum seeker, or are waiting for your asylum request to be considered.
You’re a UK state pensioner that spends up to 6 months a year living in another European Economic Area (EEA) country, but are not a resident of that country.
You’re working in an EEA country but are paying compulsory UK national insurance contributions.
You’ve been working abroad for no longer than 5 years, but have lived legally in the UK for ten continuous years at some point.
You’re from an EEA country but are referred to the UK for specified treatment with an E112 or E123 form.
You’re an unpaid worker with a voluntary organisation that offers services similar to those of a Health Authority of Local Authority social services department.
You’re employed on a ship or vessel registered in the UK or working offshore on the UK sector of the Continental Shelf.
You’re a member of the UK armed forces, or a UK civil servant working abroad who was recruited in the UK and employed by Her Majesty’s government.
You were recruited in the UK but work abroad for the British Council or the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
You receive a UK war disablement pension or war widows pension.
You’re a diplomat, or diplomatic staff, working in embassies or Commonwealth High Commissions in the UK.
You’re working abroad in a job financed in part by the UK Government in agreement with the Government or a public body of some other country or territory.
You’re a prisoner, or detained by the immigration authorities, in the UK.
You’re serving NATO personnel, posted in the UK, and are not using your own or UK armed forces hospitals.
You’ve been referred by your home country for specified treatment in the UK under the terms of a bilateral healthcare agreement.
You're a missionary working overseas for an organisation principally based in the UK, regardless of whether you are receiving a wage or salary.
You have been formally identified or suspected as being a victim of human trafficking.
You are the spouse, civil partner or dependent child of anyone who is exempt under the above criteria, if you are living permanently with the exempt person. Coming to visit the exempt person for a few weeks or months does not give exemption.

**Albatross**

@RedS8n - Yeah, don't get me wrong - I don't believe in blanket coverage for all foreigners! I suppose 'visitors' was too vague a word... but foreign workers and students should get it, deffo. IIRC the guy I said that to said that only US citizens should get it - that would exclude foreign workers and citizens, wouldn't it?

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:@Reds8n - I have an American friend who is entitled to free healthcare in the UK, and remains a US citizen - she's a student though. Maybe there's some sort of exemption.

@Frazzled - So I'm not allowed to criticise anyone who happens to be American or a section of American society?
How Un-American of you. that's practically Stalinist.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - as long as people on here make Anti-British jibes about our healthcare, dentistry, socialism, our military or our 'big-brother' surveilance system - I'll continue to voice my opinions on the things America gets wrong, along with many Americans. That doesn't make me Anti-American.

Stalin? Who's that guy? This guy is way better.

Lets view this a teaching moment for all OT posters (myself included)
Mild mannered jibes are ok. Criticisms of things are ok if they are polite/reasoned, but you're going to get responses from others. Trolling for trolling sake is no bueno. As noted others have been suspended for such. If you troll you will be as well. Period.

As noted MGS can be quite critical but doesn't generally get warnings. Same for Sebster and Dogma, even when I may disagree with them vociferously. Heck Redy is a right English nob WHAT! but he's now a mod (pardon if right English nob actually means something somewhere I just thought it sounds cool).

**reds8n**

..and you still haven't returned the negatives !

...some would say you've missed a K off there....but then people can be so cruel ..

thankfully my evolutionary derived godless hide (

) is made of stern stuff.Has to be..

...keeps the cold out, it's fething freezing my way today.

@ Mr. 'tross. dat's cool, he , of course, might have been similarly vague perhaps yes ? After all...we are all just pissing about in the OT board of a wargaming site right ?

...right ? I mean if any of our opinions were actually really sensible or valid presumably we'd be doing more than shouting at random people on the otherside of the world..

..right ?

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:@RedS8n - Yeah, don't get me wrong - I don't believe in blanket coverage for all foreigners! I suppose 'visitors' was too vague a word... but foreign workers and students should get it, deffo. IIRC the guy I said that to said that only US citizens should get it - that would exclude foreign workers and citizens, wouldn't it?

I think that it would include persons here legally that contribute. remember its not universal as you might know it, but more universal insurance, at least in one of many forms. Nothings locked down though of course.

**Albatross**

'Nob' means 'penis'....

...but it's also short for 'noble' or 'nobility', so you're fine.

But I came 'this' close to reporting you

.

**Wrexasaur**

Frazz wrote:Heck Redy is a right English nob WHAT! but he's now a mod (pardon if right English nob actually means something somewhere I just thought it sounds cool).

A right English Nob that goes all the way... to 11.

Use your indoor voices, you damn banana-heads...

**Albatross**

@Reds8n - ...and they all lived happily ever after.

Hey, if you can't shout at people on the other side of the world on your day off, when can you?

Um, ok - weird sentence, that.

**reds8n**

*bans everyone instantly*

Carpe Diem ! The moment is now !

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:*bans everyone instantly*

Carpe Diem ! The moment is now !

Ah you've finally come into your own as a Mod. Its like watching your youngest take his first drive

then wreck the car.

OT but in other news the new puppy just discovered charcoal dumped into the garden centuries ago by a not sober Frazzled way more interested in Fajitas at the time.
The new puppy just dragged said charcoal into the house. Puppy is cute so She Who Must Be Obeyed has decided to let me live, for now...

**reds8n**

Silence... unperson !

...hey least it was only a hybrid !