bmattock
Mentor
And again, none of that is under consideration in the bills currently before the US Congress. Attempts to conflate the current US patches to what other countries have for health care systems is generally an intentional attempt at misdirection. Pure sleight of hand.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Global warming was mentioned too ...
Happy Thanksgiving and best of luck down there with everything.
gdi
Mentor
You conveniently ignore the fact that government at all levels have placed unprecedented amounts of regulations and mandates on the industry. What we have is far from a free market system, whether you can acknowledge it or not. You cannot fairly indict one of the players in the situation to assign all blame to them.
That is absolutely false - there is nothing in the amendment to "increase the number of companies that would be barred from providing abortion coverage". As I said before, you really need to understand a little about the industry and associated terminology, then read the amendment. As you research, pay close attention to the definitions of the terms "plan" and "entity".
It should then be clear to you what the intent and letter of the amendment is. Also, you are truly in the minority if you believe that taxpayer funded abortion is a human rights issue.
I think I caught on earlier that you don't care for insurance companies and want that transfer to go to the government. Callng the insurance companies unaccountable and monopolistic cannot be backed by facts when they are the most regulated private industry in the country.
I want it too be clear that I respect your opinion and desire for government control of the industry, you are free to advocate any solution you care to. But my position comes from doing a significant amount of research into the matter and not from gut feel. We need health care reform to provide everyone with affordable access; I do not support the status quo.
Last edited:
Yes, it has been a law in the US for over 20 years. One cannot be turned down for emergency care. Of course, as a result, emergency rooms are now clogged with non-citizens coming in for common ailments...because they can be treated for free.
In Hawaii, they briefly offered free healthcare to children, but they had to shut it down after a few months. Why? Those who already were paying for insurance decided it was better to get it for free. The state didn't anticipate what every elementary school kid understands...if something is sold for less than true value (especially free!) it creates unlimited demand...that's why any government care will end up being rationed care...it's unavoidable.
Oct 11, 2008 HONOLULU (AP) - Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.
Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
skibeerr
Well-known
Belgian Healthcare system,
- The insurance is an obligation.
- Everybody pays a contribution from their wages
- no income you still are insured.
- There are four independant healthcare insuransecompanys grown out of the old political parties, Christian/Liberal/Socialist/Independant
- You are free to join any one of these
- They serve as watchdogs so that their money is not wasted, but they are neither commercial nor governamental and are in competition with each other so they need to be performant and attractive.
- They provide coverage for almost every disease, the list of those is continuously amended by the governement in accordance with insurors and the medical branche.
- People getting medical care still have to pay a smal part to avoid overconsumption.
Off course every week there is news of someting going wrong, a disease not covered that should be or someone who's child has a very rare disease and needs to get two or three million euro to get treatment in the US.
But I know that if I break a leg tomorrow I have no financial worries.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Mentor
As others have noted, you're arguments, such as they are, are disingenuous and often untrue.
It would be nice if you could contribute something other than high school debate team tactics and soundbites gleaned from right-wing media.
Paul T.
Mentor
WHat's so great about this thread, is that at the end we will all obviously agree on a consensus and a way forward.
wgerrard
Mentor
The Constitution does not address health care in any fashion. You cannot equate the absence of language regarding an activity with its prohibition. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say "the following 10 rights are the only rights enjoyed by Americans".
The Constitution says nothing about cars, airplanes, or baseball. Should we amend it before we can drive, fly or go to the game?
Bill, you keep saying what I post is 'untrue' but you show nothing to back it up. You offer nothing whatsoever to dispute what I have posted.
There are so many examples of how the government is inefficient and ineffective; not anticipating even the most common-sense results of their actions (Hawaii, see above); with poor quality, mismanagement, waste, fraud; with kickbacks to politicians in one way or another. If only the US government had a track record of success with Medicare, just to name even one single program...but they don't.
There are so many examples of how the government is inefficient and ineffective; not anticipating even the most common-sense results of their actions (Hawaii, see above); with poor quality, mismanagement, waste, fraud; with kickbacks to politicians in one way or another. If only the US government had a track record of success with Medicare, just to name even one single program...but they don't.
wgerrard
Mentor
That is simply not true, Bill. The left wants a single payer system. THe right claims to want no changes in the status quo, but really wants to expand the role of the for-profit insurers because the right believes, as a matter of faith, that a for-profit corporate market can solve all problems. (Some, at least. others are just lining their pockets.)
The Obama administration -- neither leftist or representative of the American left -- proposal is designed to get through Congress in the face of total GOP opposition. If a few more Senate races had gone the right way, this nonsense would have been avoided.
People point to the French, UK and other similar systems in an attempt to convince the recalcitrant that other societies -- societies much like our own -- have found successful ways to provide health care. We might learn something from them, you know.
One point of difference with other countries is that they do not seemed to be burdened with mean-spirited angry people who see any government effort to do anything for the public good as theft. The right's total disdain for government is an indication of how far to the edge it has slipped, and poses a serious threat to the ability of the country to be governed.
wgerrard
Mentor
Your words are based on beliefs not everyone shares.
I have no personal animus about fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of Christians who aren't. I can't think of a more private and personal matter, which is why I don't discuss my own beliefs.
But political behavior is a different matter altogether, regardless of its inspiration. People do not get a pass because they believe something.
ferider
Mentor
More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world.
wgerrard
Mentor
1. I have no faith in the willingness of any private for-profit corporation to provide honest and adequate and safe health care absent government regulation. People lie, cheat and steal.
2. No more fundamental human right exists than control of our own bodies.
3. Absent government restraints, corporations inevitably coalesce into monopolistic or near-monopolstic entities.
Yes, the right believes in capitalism, because entrepreneurial capitalism is what built the United States into the great country that it is today. This was *despite* the government, not because of it.
The right *does* want changes to the health care system...we want freedom of choice, we want as many choices as possible...choice and competition is what drives the price down and quality up. In the 70s, Japanese auto imports caused US makers to make smaller, more efficient cars and increase quality. Competition and choice is what drove this...there are thousands of other examples.
You have made many posts about not wanting undue power in the hands of the few, yet a single payer system does exactly that.
Why do you keep blaming the GOP? They are irrelevant. If you can't get your own party behind these ideas, then perhaps the ideas are flawed...
"Obama’s biggest obstacle is the 68% of voters who rate their health coverage as good or excellent."-- WSJ.
68% is a HUGE landslide in an election.
People like our esteemed leaders William Jefferson, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Dan Rostenkowski, Duke Cunningham...shining lights of both parties.
Yes, if you want to give up that control to the government, feel free. I choose not.
We have government restraints against this, in case you haven't heard.
wgerrard
Mentor
Has anyone said the left doesn't believe in capitalism? What the left knows is that unregulated capitalism invariably leads to economic disaster. (For that matter, the right doesn't appear to believe in government.)
And, as I've repeatedly said, a for-profit market business cannot survive by selling at a loss. A for-profit health care system cannot provide health care to all Americans unless it makes up its losses by raising prices or asking for government subsidies.
The reason millions of people lack health care in this country is because private corporations can't price the care or the insurance low enough for everyone to afford it. It's an inevitable consequence.
You may believe an unbridled and unregulated for-profit health care system can deliver quality care to al, but you will need to explain how those corporations are going to survive selling their product to millions of people who can't and won't pay.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Mentor
The first two responses are non sequiturs. The third ignores the fact that health insurers are exempt for anti-trust action.
dfoo
Well-known
In Canada we have universal free healthcare. Healthcare decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies or government bureaucrats. My taxes are lower than my colleague who lives in California. Last, but not least, there is no rationing of health care.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
There are plenty of good people who aren't Christians, and plenty of Christians who aren't good. Surely you cannot deny that there are plenty on the far right who seem to think that their Christian faith obliges them to be on the far right, and who constantly push a hardline Christian agenda. Well, not really Christian, because it's based on hate and intolerance, but that's what they say it is.
When they stop associating Christianity and extreme right-wing politics, so will the rest of us. In the UK, in fact, the closest association between religion and Christianity is almost certainly on the left: particularly, Methodism and the Labour Party. In fact, the post-war welfare state was widely lauded as the New Jerusalem.
Cheers,
Roger