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.

 whembly wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...

Governments are not moral.

Never said that...

That's why we have welform/safety nets... because we consider it our duty to help those who need it.
.

It doesn't matter what you think you said. You tried to apply moral values to government, it has none. By the same token I believe that abortion is immoral but I DEMAND that my government protect it as a right. Governments are not moral.

 whembly wrote:
Or likely they'll either work with the Patient Accounting dept to either work out a reduced payment option, or the facility would write them off.

Yeah, if the person is seen to have so few assets that the cost of pursuing the debt is greater than the expected amount to be recovered, they'll write it off. And then there's all those hospitals that receive tax breaks to provide care to people who can't pay for it.

And then there's the hundreds of thousands of people who just bankrupt over medical debts they can't pay.


My question is why accept all of that, but then freak out when people suggest a system where all of the waste in the above is sidestepped, just by giving people medical coverage in the first place?

Exactly. The American taxpayers and insurance policy holders wind up paying the costs of emergency care anyway, in the forms of increased premiums, increased hospital costs, and tax write offs for hospitals caring for the uninsured.

So why do we do it the stupid way by denying uninsured people the cheap kind of care- preventive care, which they can get if they have healthcare covered? Instead we only let them have emergency care, which is always vastly more expensive.

One of the universally accepted rights of man is the right to life, the right to health follows directly from the right to life. If you believe that health is not a right then at some point you have to admit life is not a right

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What about it?

That there's a very strange change in thinking. When a person is at the emergency ward with a gunshot, there's no debate on the issue. It's come on in, we'll treat you. But if that person has a long term illness somehow whether or not they're treated becomes a debatable point.

Right... you got it.

Dats the way it works here...

But, that isn't the debate per se...

Its if you can afford the insurance. THATS the crux of the issue.

Here's the disconnect...

Realize that the healthcare industry is a SERVICE industry... as cold as it sounds, they're working for a paycheck.

Enter the government... it creates rules/regulation that makes the entire system inherently inefficient...

Americans pay for the innovations / advance research that we pay through the nose (and ironically, the rest of the wold benefits, but pay waaay less for a variety of reasons. So, you can thanks us!)...

We are also the most unhealthiest folks on the planet... that adds even more of a burden to healthcare...

And I'm sure I'm forgetting things...

The facts are: It's a complicated situation... and government throwing more money at the same thing may not be the answer... heck, *I* don't have an answer...

Except maybe crash Az's house to leach off of the Candian Medicare system!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or likely they'll either work with the Patient Accounting dept to either work out a reduced payment option, or the facility would write them off.

Yeah, if the person is seen to have so few assets that the cost of pursuing the debt is greater than the expected amount to be recovered, they'll write it off. And then there's all those hospitals that receive tax breaks to provide care to people who can't pay for it.

And then there's the hundreds of thousands of people who just bankrupt over medical debts they can't pay.


My question is why accept all of that, but then freak out when people suggest a system where all of the waste in the above is sidestepped, just by giving people medical coverage in the first place?

I think I've made my point in other threads against the ACA act... 'cuz, it's just a bad bill.

Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model! It's gotta be more efficient than what we have now.

 sebster wrote:
I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?

I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model!

That is indeed a preferable solution. In order to make it happen, I suggest you vote Democrat.

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?

I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.

It's not just the last few years, either. Couple of quotes regarding the passage of Social Security, and Medicare, respectively:

John Taber, (R, NY) wrote:Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers.

Ronald Reagan, 1961 wrote:We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Yup. Since Social Security and Medicare were passed, we've all been living under "the lash of the dictator".

Rommyn or /obama. ,tuogh choicem!

 Mannahnin wrote:

So why do we do it the stupid way by denying uninsured people the cheap kind of care- preventive care, which they can get if they have healthcare covered?

Emotional attachment to a particular set of ideals that are being manipulated for the profit of others.

 Manchu wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe. [...] You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party?

I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model!

That is indeed a preferable solution. In order to make it happen, I suggest you vote Democrat.

I do vote for some (D)s...

Just not Obama

Govenor Nixon in MO does aight!

Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.

The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.

So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?

He doesn't have the right to be treated. Doctors however have the obligation to treat him due to the Hippocratic oath, plus whatever moral responsibilities people have.

The Doctors also have the right to charge him for the treatment.


He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.

Its not nice for sure. Its horrible, but thats how the world works.


Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?

If I'm going to pay into a system, I want it to be towards my own care. I also want to have the choice in the matter, not be forced by the government to do something I may or may not need. In fact, the statistics show I will probably never need it.

I think you should win a special award for having said the most foolish thing in a thread dedicated to the most foolish thing Mitt Romney has said so far.

I want you to print your comment out and keep it safe. Hang on to it. Trust me.
Because you will change your entire attitude under one of the following conditions:
1. You get sick (1 in 7 people will get some form of cancer in their lives)
2. Someone in your family gets sick.
3. You get into a car accident, etc.
4. Someone in your family gets into a car accident, etc.
5. Your home catches fire.
...I hope you get the idea now. If not, When you're a little older, you'll understand once health care starts to be a thing you have to worry about.

The system you pay into is for your own care, and the care of everyone. It's a rising-tides-lifts-all-ships sort of deal. Otherwise, why bother to pay for any services at all? Odds are you'll never need the fire department, either. But if/when you do, I bet you'll be Goddamn dancing when they show up.

The type of system you seem to prefer is what is commonly referred to as a "savings account" at your local bank, and I think you'll find that in your lifetime there is a better-than-average chance that you will never be able to save up enough money to pay for any type of serious medical treatment out of pocket.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.

Thats because portions of the electorate think the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life. The electorate treats the government like its their parents or something.


There is what a government is supposed to do, and then what the government does because the people pulling the strings said so. The people pulling the strings can be wrong.

Its the difference between ideal and non-ideal government. An ideal government will do exactly what I've pointed out. Have a military for defense, police forces to keep order, and finally public utilities(roads, schools, fire departments, etc)

A non-ideal government gets bogged down in what its electorate wants. They want tons of stuff and pay tax dollars to do it. Unfortunantly, unless only some people benifit from these extra things it costs too much money and the government goes into debt.

Except a government that violates the wishes if the majority of its populace consistently loses legitimacy

 youbedead wrote:
Except a government that violates the wishes if the majority of its populace consistently loses legitimacy

Well people shouldn't be asking the government to do something that it wasn't designed or originally intended to do.

Medical care should be left to the people that are trained to do it, Economic matters should be left to the businesses and economists,

Politics ruins everything it touches. keep their grimy hands off as much as possable.

Government is designed to meet the needs of the poeple, the people decide what their needs are, thats the entire basis of democratic government

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.

Thats because portions of the electorate think the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life. The electorate treats the government like its their parents or something.

There is what a government is supposed to do, and then what the government does because the people pulling the strings said so. The people pulling the strings can be wrong.

Its the difference between ideal and non-ideal government. An ideal government will do exactly what I've pointed out. Have a military for defense, police forces to keep order, and finally public utilities(roads, schools, fire departments, etc)

What is the real difference between us using government to provide us with police, fire, and education services, and using it to provide healthcare? IMO a stronger argument can be made for healthcare being provided by government than education.

Virtually none of the electorate thinks "the Government is supposed to take care of them in all areas of life". That's the stupid thing Romney said. It's dumb, and wrong Most of the people to whom he attributed that attitude actually have jobs, or are retirees. And many people who are dependent on government services are opposed to them, or in denial that they're the very people benefitting from the programs they decry. Check out tonight's Daily Show. It was classic. Great closing quote from Craig T. Nelson: "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anyone help me out? No." It'd be hysterical if it wasn't so scary and sad.

Well people shouldn't be asking the government to do something that it wasn't designed or originally intended to do.

What was it originally designed and intended to do?

Medical care should be left to the people that are trained to do it, Economic matters should be left to the businesses and economists,

You're missing the whole point of government. Government is the mechanism by which a society gets the big stuff done that it needs done. Taking care of citizen's basic needs and economic matters have been functions of government since prehistory.

Politics ruins everything it touches. keep their grimy hands off as much as possable.

Sadly there is no way to do that. Politics are an inescapable part of being human and working in groups.

Medical care is different from Police, Fire, and Education because everyone has an equal need for the above 3. Not everyone has an equal need for healthcare.

And I do think people that choose not to use/never use public education should have the option to not pay for it. Homeschoolers, people that put their kids through private school, and those without kids shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids to go to school.

 whembly wrote:
Its if you can afford the insurance. THATS the crux of the issue.

I don't think anyone has suggested those who can pay for it shouldn't.

It then becomes an issue of building the most efficient possible system in which those who can pay for health insurance pay for it, while those who cannot are covered.

If you look around the world you'll find many such systems, such as Germany or Australia, and you'll be hard pressed to find a non-lunatic who thought the US model was best of all.

Realize that the healthcare industry is a SERVICE industry... as cold as it sounds, they're working for a paycheck.

Enter the government... it creates rules/regulation that makes the entire system inherently inefficient...

The problem is that isn't true, it's just a thing Republicans have been shouting for a long time.

The actual truth is that government regulation can make a system less efficient and more unwieldy, but the right regulation in the right circumstance can be needed to make it more efficient. Think about the fastest, most efficient pricing market the world has ever seen - the stock market. It's also the most tightly regulated market the world has ever seen.

Americans pay for the innovations / advance research that we pay through the nose (and ironically, the rest of the wold benefits, but pay waaay less for a variety of reasons. So, you can thanks us!)...

This is a wildly overstated claim. US medical research as a percentage of GDP is more or less on par with other first world nations, and what you develop is almost always monetised and therefore when the rest of us use it we pay (something which isn't true of all medical advances in other countries).

Where the US system drives its costs up comes from incredibly inefficient administration systems (bills from hospitals to insurers to private citizens, then payment back down the same chain), from a seperation between consumer and product (you might want to pay more to make sure something is covered, but your insurance is whatever your employer signed up for so any actual market benefit is lost), and from a system that simply lacks price sensitivity (massive freedom given to doctors to book whatever treatment he thinks will work, without any price mechanism discouraging over treatment).

The facts are: It's a complicated situation... and government throwing more money at the same thing may not be the answer... heck, *I* don't have an answer...

The answer isn't to throw more government money at it. The problem is how much of everyone's money is currently being drained into a system to deliver middle of the pack results.

The answer is to begin to reform each part of the system in the best way possible. Seperate insurance from employers, so the individual consumer has a choice in what they want covered and don't want to pay for. Develop a body that engages medical professionals to talk about what treatments are actually necessary for various problems, and have insurance companies sign on to cover those things but not any more elaborate, waste of money treatments. There's loads of other mini-solutions possible, that can be rolled out in a series of progressive reforms.

None of what I've said above is contraversial or difficult to understand. The problem is that conversation never happens, because so many right wing footsoldiers make so much noise about personal responsibility and other non-issues that they drown out sensible conversation on the issue.

Like I said earlier, just trash the whole system and go the Canadian model! It's gotta be more efficient than what we have now.

It is. It's certainly a viable option.

Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police

 youbedead wrote:
Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police

Because there is a bigger chance that you will burn down your house or get robbed than there is that you might get sick or break a leg at some point of course.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Medical care is different from Police, Fire, and Education because everyone has an equal need for the above 3. Not everyone has an equal need for healthcare.

Are you joking? Everyone needs healthcare. Only some people have a fire. And not everyone has an equal need for education.

 Manchu wrote:
I have to disagree. I think we must assume sincerity even if it has sinister implications. Maybe especially in that case.

I think that was the case. It was the Big Lie, all nonsense and noise thrown out about abortion, gay rights, government takeovers, socialism and all this other stupid stuff, to get the population to get out there and vote for the party. All the while the party just tracked along steadily, continuing to serve its wealth benefactors.

Same could be said for the Democrats, though the nonsense and noise issues were different.


But it appears that a generation of Republicans has now grown up hearing the Big Lie, and didn't get that wasn't really what it was all about. Those people are actually ending up in power now. I mean Michelle Bachman went from hiding in the bushes at a gay rally and running away when people noticing her, to a factional leader in the Republican Party.

ffs GT, put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.

Your comments in here are sickening.

Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?

another way of saying "I've got mine so feth you"?

 youbedead wrote:
Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police

Everyone needs to be educated to some level and everyone has a relativly equal risk for fire and crime. Not having these 3 also effects everyone around you.

health risks are extremely variable. disease may or may not be contagious. it may actually not need treatment. you may not even get sick at all. individuals may be extremely vigorous or sickly.

Healthcare is also personal. its very detailed and dependent on the individual circumstances. The government deals in the big picture. Fire and Police work are pretty much uniform accross the board, medical care is not.

Thats why the government shouldn't touch it. Bureaucratic nightmare.

I don't even know where to start anymore. Good luck, buddy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Healthcare is also personal. its very detailed and dependent on the individual circumstances. The government deals in the big picture. Fire and Police work are pretty much uniform accross the board, medical care is not.

I am just going to safely assume that you have zero experience in fire or police work there.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
ffs GT, put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.

Your comments in here are sickening.

Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?

another way of saying "I've got mine so feth you"?

I'll help you of my own free will. I'm not going to consent to being forced to do it though.

See the difference?


Charity is exactly that. Its supposed to be a free gift, not something that you are forced to do by the government.

Why should I be forced to pay for fire services if your house is on fire, why should I be forced to pay for police if I am not the victim of a crime

 Grey Templar wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
ffs GT, put yourself in someone else's shoes for once.

Your comments in here are sickening.

Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?

another way of saying "I've got mine so feth you"?

I'll help you of my own free will. I'm not going to consent to being forced to do it though.

See the difference?


Charity is exactly that. Its supposed to be a free gift, not something that you are forced to do by the government.

Charity is obviously the panacea for all of our ails; why look at how few children go hungry, veterans go homeless, people die of curable diseases... charity does it all!

Oh wait...

 youbedead wrote:
Why do people need an equal need for education fire and police

As far as education goes poor neighborhoods generally receive less money for education; it's the basic reason the War on Poverty is a dismal failure. Rich and middle class kids get good and ok educations while poor kids barely meet the minimums. Police and fire are a different bundle of bananas.