The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[mattskramer]

No, you can't go to the ER unless its an actual emergency. They will refuse you. Secondly a lot don't because they are afraid of being deported. There are free clinics, but the reason they are swamped is because there aren't very many of them and the level of care there isn't exactly through. It is much, much better than nothing, but it is not near the level of care someone with decent health insurance recieves.



Then why make fun of people who want to feed the hungry and give healthcare to the injured?

Do you have links to unbiased web sites that support your claims? I disagree with you. While someone might not go to ER for a paper cut, simple economic philosophy claims that, in general, people are more willing to go get stuff that is “free” than to get the same stuff if they have to pay for it. It falls under the category of cost-benefit analysis. Why would I travel to a store and buy a box of bandages when I can go to the hospital to have a doctor fix me up for free?

The same apples to clinics. Why would I go to a hospital and fork over a bunch of money when I can go to a “free” clinic and get similar service for free? I think that free clinics are crowded because more people want free service than service that they have to pay for. “Sonic” was giving free drinks last week. You should have seen the line of cars trying to get into Sonic’s drive through. The McDonalds fast-food place, for comparison, across the street, was practically empty. This all comes down to cost/benefit and supply/demand.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, you can't go to the ER unless its an actual emergency. They will refuse you. Secondly a lot don't because they are afraid of being deported. There are free clinics, but the reason they are swamped is because there aren't very many of them and the level of care there isn't exactly through. It is much, much better than nothing, but it is not near the level of care someone with decent health insurance recieves.

Then why make fun of people who want to feed the hungry and give healthcare to the injured?

"actual emergency"? that covers a lot of territory.

Let me give you an real-life example. Couple days ago I got what we now believe was food poisoning. I was totally retched to the point I had to lay down in the waiting room. Still not feeling that hot but now recovering. I could have gone to the emergency ward but since I have health care insurance I chose instead to go see my doctor. If I had no health care insurance (like most illegals) where do you think I would have gone?

I don't want to make fun of those who want to feed the hungry, etc. It is a noble cause. However, there are many roads to get there. Socialized medicine is not the best route, imo. Would you like to receive the socialized medicine found in Russia or China? Do you really want a government - any government - controlling your personal health care? Or would you prefer to have individual free choices?

 

[Larkinn]

Tell it to my friend who was living in pain wating two yeats for his knee replacement when could have it done in a month here.

If I needed a knee replacement, I wouldn't be waiting for one, I just wouldnt get one.

Anecdotes are fun, but completely useless and irrelevant. So spare me.

Elective has nothing do with it. It's the demand. There rarer the condition the less demand there will be from people for treatment.

Yes, but supply of the doctors will, obviously, not be equal in all different areas.

The more common the conditoin the more demdand there will be for it. It isn't the electives you will wait longer for. It's the most basic forms of care because there is more demand.

No, actually. Seeing a GP in britain does not take longer than some forms of surgery. I think we can all agree that more people see GP's than have surgery, yes? The difference, again, is that supply is different, as well as demand.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Spoken by someone who believes in a right to life and a right to health. You obviously don't.

I do, would not rather help yourself and achieve on your own instead of beind dependent on government?

I would rather depend on my government to have a military as opposed to having my own. I'd rather like roads on the street so I don't need to pave my own as well. It'd also be nice if when there was a fire at my house I didn't need to form my own fire department and battle it. I would also prefer to have the state punish criminals as opposed to me having to do it myself. I would also prefer the state to have to provide for my primary education, considering I don't think I would be able to do it alone at the tender age of 6.

We are social animals. An individualistic attitude is fine, but there is some give and take to it.

Yes there are risks in living in a more capitilisitc society, but I would much rather have the opportunity to achieve whatever I want, then for the government to tell it's for the good of the group that I don't

Ah so I guess all the poor people in the US are just lazy, right? Opportunities don't matter, right?

Trust me, they do. Family matters, connections matter, how you were raised matters.

I don't take advantage of it (much), but I could. And its fucked up my friend.

Hyptheitcals can't prove anything.

You are vastly uneducated if you believe that.

Once you reach certain point on that list there is a drastic difference btween those above it and those below it in terms of quality of care. For the countries at the top the quality measurements are fairly negligible. It is wrong for example, to insinuate that the qulity of care that one received in teh US is vastly inferior to that of France.

Vastly inferior, no. But inferior, yes.

And yes there is a drastic difference between the US and Nigeria. As there well ******* should be. So don't gloat over that fact.

And we will cease to be the richest country in the world if we moved to your type of society.

My type of society? You have no idea what my type of society would be, we are talking purely about healthcare.

That number is an average of five factors that measure very different things. to me the overall rank means nothing, especially after looking at the table. the rank is extrememly misleading.

The overall rank means nothing? Err alrighty then.

Now unless you just don't get basic economics the latter makes sense because we have the highest quality in terms of attentiveness and quick response to people's needs. You are going to pay more for better quality, period

Really? So then price per capita and responsiveness should be the same all the way down the board, right?

Hmm....thats funny. They aren't.

The second of those factors Overall health has many factors that go into it as well. Primarily people's health habits. You don't need to see a doctor to learn how to be healthy

So you think that Americans health habits are much worse than those in other countries?

I already addressed this point, and you ignored it.

Uh those are synonyms bud

Uh, no.

Efficient.

1. performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2. satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3. producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4. utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.

Effective.

1. adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.
2. actually in operation or in force; functioning: The law becomes effective at midnight.
3. producing a deep or vivid impression; striking: an effective photograph.
4. prepared and available for service, esp. military service.

And people will wait longer to be diagnosed, which you acknowledged. Which is time they may not have.

People...on average...will be diagnosed quicker. So no.

Then we are talking about two different things. When I had cancer and was told i was going to die, do you really think i made decisions based on how much it was gonna cost or if I was treated by the best in the business?

Congratulations that you had the money to do that. My mom did that as well, and went outside her HMO coverage to do so. My parents are both fairly prestigious lawyers and my mom is a well known writer...if they hadn't been able to sue their HMO for the money for her coverage, we would have had to declare bankruptcy.

It doesn't only effect the have nots.

So basically you are willing to sacrafice one group of lives for another?

Dude...you are advocating keeping a sub-class of society out of the healthcare system entirely, to make it better for the rest of us. You really aren't one to talk about sacraficing one group of lives for another. Yes, including all of the poor Americans who currently don't have healthcare will make it worse off for us rich folk. Boo ******* hoo.

And at this point you still have the ablity to do something about that. If we were in a country with socialized medicine and you got cancer the likely of you dieing would be greater, free healthcare or not, because the quality fo care that you personally would be receiveing would ahve gone down.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Look at Canadian survival rates and American survival rates. You know, of the terrible, incompetent Canadian system.

Im sorry but that isn't simply incorrect. Plus it's a contradiction of this cost bent you are on. From the get go your whole argument has been cost, cost, cost. But now the overall picture is what's important.

No, actually its always been about overall care that is important to me. However I need to reflect on the cost because that is always what opponents of NHS systems whine about, how much it will cost.

You are simply defining quality incorrectly. Really all your talkign about is affordability.

That is part of quality. It doesn't matter if you have the best doctors in the world if nobody can afford them.

Fine, wehn you get sick we'll send you to Cuba or venezuela cause it's not that big a difference right?

Congratulations on the non sequiter. No, I never claimed there was not that big of a difference.

originally posted by matt
Do you have links to unbiased web sites that support your claims? I disagree with you. While someone might not go to ER for a paper cut, simple economic philosophy claims that, in general, people are more willing to go get stuff that is “free” than to get the same stuff if they have to pay for it. It falls under the category of cost-benefit analysis. Why would I travel to a store and buy a box of bandages when I can go to the hospital to have a doctor fix me up for free?

Err are you implying that hospitals are free for everyone? They aren't. Which claims would you like me to support? I don't really understand what you are talking about honestly.

The same apples to clinics. Why would I go to a hospital and fork over a bunch of money when I can go to a “free” clinic and get similar service for free? I think that free clinics are crowded because more people want free service than service that they have to pay for

Ever been to a free clinic? They suck.

 

[Bern80]

If I needed a knee replacement, I wouldn't be waiting for one, I just wouldnt get one.

That's a personal choice I guess. Most people wouldn't be willing to live in taht kind of pain. newsflash: the fact that you need a new knee means the one you have probably hurts pretty bad.

Anecdotes are fun, but completely useless and irrelevant. So spare me.

yet another incorrect statement. It a true story about how the system you advoacte failed someone.

Yes, but supply of the doctors will, obviously, not be equal in all different areas.

Do to health care costs most places aren't going to hire more doctors than they need. So in terms of supply that means there will be at least enough to satisfy demand or less than that.

No, actually. Seeing a GP in britain does not take longer than some forms of surgery. I think we can all agree that more people see GP's than have surgery, yes? The difference, again, is that supply is different, as well as demand.

see above

Spoken by someone who believes in a right to life and a right to health. You obviously don't.

I believe in doing things the best way possible. Government has shown time and time again that it is generally the poorest method of accomplishing anything

I would rather depend on my government to have a military as opposed to having my own.

Government pays for military they don't buld it

I'd rather like roads on the street so I don't need to pave my own as well.

Government pays for roads, they dont build them

It'd also be nice if when there was a fire at my house I didn't need to form my own fire department and battle it. I would also prefer to have the state punish criminals as opposed to me having to do it myself. I would also prefer the state to have to provide for my primary education, considering I don't think I would be able to do it alone at the tender age of 6.

I can agree there are some things any government should provide, healthcare is not one of them.

We are social animals. An individualistic attitude is fine, but there is some give and take to it.

Sure, but you're not giveing. Im not saying our healthcare can't be improved, but you are insistant the govt is the one and only answer. the more dependent you become on government the more control it has over you.

Ah so I guess all the poor people in the US are just lazy, right? Opportunities don't matter, right?

A lot of them yes. Not that you will believe that. Most people simply aren't willing to put forth the effort it takes to achieve anything. the majority peole aren't willing to go to school for a third of their lives to become lawyers or doctors. many aren't willing to put in the effort of creating their own businesss. Believe what you will but there just aren't that many people living under these insurmounatable odds.

Trust me, they do. Family matters, connections matter, how you were raised matters.

and there are consequences in choosing not to play that game.

I don't take advantage of it (much), but I could. And its fucked up my friend.

why?

You are vastly uneducated if you believe that.

You're hypothetical doesn't prove anything. I knew it wouldn't be long before the liberal elitist attitutde poked through.

And yes there is a drastic difference between the US and Nigeria. As there well ******* should be. So don't gloat over that fact.

I didn't

My type of society? You have no idea what my type of society would be, we are talking purely about healthcare.

in terms of your healthcare system it would be one of diminished quality

The overall rank means nothing? Err alrighty then.

Without knowing the factors behind it, yes. and that's how you originally presented it. you were banking that no one would dig any deeper than that.

Knowing now what I know about the factors involved Im not too displeased with it. The whole picture is simply this:

In terms of quality of care you will receive the U.S. is at or near the top. However this highest quality in the world comes at the expense taht approximately one/third of american's can't pay for it.

As to the last statement that isn't even the fault of the physicians or facilities. that;s the fault of the people not accepting the trade offs of the country we live in and acting accordingly

Really? So then price per capita and responsiveness should be the same all the way down the board, right?

Hmm....thats funny. They aren't.

No because they aren't corellary factors.

So you think that Americans health habits are much worse than those in other countries?

I already addressed this point, and you ignored it.

Yes I do, i think we are an instant gratification society that want to take less and les responsibilty for our choices.

People...on average...will be diagnosed quicker. So no.

By the logic that those who weren't getting diagnosed at all now are. let's do some quick math.

90 people need to see the doctor. Under the current system only 60 can afford to so the other 30 do go at all. Lets say now they all take 5 days to be diagnosed. Can you already see the problem? How do you avg out the people that didn't see the doctor. You can't make it zero because that would actually decrease the diagnosis time, when we want it to go up. We have not idead how many days to add because some may never see a doctor either.

So you can't make the claim the avg diagnosis time will go down bacuase there is no way to determine how long it will take that one third to be diagnosed. Further it goes yuor whole good of the whole argument. Well at teh very least the wait time for diagnosis is going to go up for that 60 people under socialzied medicine. I thought you were against sacarficing teh whole for the sake of the few.

Congratulations that you had the money to do that. My mom did that as well, and went outside her HMO coverage to do so. My parents are both fairly prestigious lawyers and my mom is a well known writer...if they hadn't been able to sue their HMO for the money for her coverage, we would have had to declare bankruptcy.

It doesn't only effect the have nots.

The point would be that under a socialized system the odds would be better that I wouldn't even be here today, due to the diminished quality of the care I received.

Dude...you are advocating keeping a sub-class of society out of the healthcare system entirely, to make it better for the rest of us. You really aren't one to talk about sacraficing one group of lives for another. Yes, including all of the poor Americans who currently don't have healthcare will make it worse off for us rich folk. Boo ******* hoo.

It will make it worse for everyone. Not just rich. I certianly believe attempts should be made to find a solution to this problem, but there is a certail level of responsibility taht falls on us all as individuals. All I am advocating is that government not be teh soltution because i know what will happen.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Look at Canadian survival rates and American survival rates. You know, of the terrible, incompetent Canadian system.

go reread the articl i posted about Canada, it will catch up if it hasn't already

No, actually its always been about overall care that is important to me. However I need to reflect on the cost because that is always what opponents of NHS systems whine about, how much it will cost.

Quite the contrary, i have stated the whole time I am far more concerned about the quality of care than the cost of it. The table you provided shows that in socialized countries the quality of care, that is the quality of technology, physicians and faciliteis is lower in countries with socialized medicine.

That is part of quality. It doesn't matter if you have the best doctors in the world if nobody can afford them.

We aren't talking about no one. We're talking about a third of the population that has no health care compared to teh other two thirds that have excellent care. So to save that one third, one third that can do plenty of things on their own to reduce their risk of illnesses, you want to give the industry to the government, a government that has shown time and time again how inefficient it is at anything, and by your own admission lower the quality of the care that now all people will receive. How do you not see what an asanine solution that is?

No, I never claimed there was not that big of a difference.

That speak volumes then. Because despite all your talk at teh end of the day you would still rather be treared in the U.S, right?

Ever been to a free clinic? They suck.

Gee Larkinn tell me whats so bad about tehse free clinics otherwise known as healthcare?

 

[mattskramer]

Err are you implying that hospitals are free for everyone? They aren't. Which claims would you like me to support? I don't really understand what you are talking about honestly.

It is not difficult for someone to commit fraud and get service at a “free” clinic even when he can easily afford to get service elsewhere. You said that the reason that the clinics are crowded is because there are so few of them. That might be a small factor. I think that they are so crowded is because they are so cheap.

 

[Bern80]

It is not difficult for someone to commit fraud and get service at a “free” clinic even when he can easily afford to get service elsewhere. You said that the reason that the clinics are crowded is because there are so few of them. That might be a small factor. I think that they are so crowded is because they are so cheap.

Wow, some people just can't see a connection can they.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

so much fighting, I feel like im on the jerry springer board.

People should respect other peoples religious beliefs, even if they dont agree with, and not try to convert others to them, by degrading those beliefs.

This is my common sense rule: only if a belief is kill someone, or put them in jail, for being not my religion, then i have a problem.

But you cant really argue beliefs, only opinions.

Wow, some people just can't see a connection can they.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Originally Posted by Larkinn On a personal note, there are a lot of people in the US who can't afford healthcare when they haven't had the chance to succeed yet. I think most people would consider me successful at this stage in my life. I am 23 and about to go to a fairly prestigious law school. But yet...I don't have health insurance. If anything happened to me now, I would be pretty well fucked.

Although our health care system definitely needs improvement, this country doesn't have quite as bad a problem as some people would like you to think.

First of all I'd like to correct the popular impression that one third of the people in the U.S. do not have heath care. The more accurate figure is more like 44 million, or about one sixth of the population. Subtract 12 mil illegals and you got more like one tenth without actual health care.

This misrepresentation probably came about from a report like this:

Washington D.C. - Twenty-nine percent of working families in the United States with one to three children under age 12 do not earn enough income to afford basic necessities like food, housing, health care, and child care, even during a period of national prosperity.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/press_releases_hardships

Who knows how many of those "working families" are illegals with their anchor babies...

Secondly, of this 44 million without health insurance, many are choosing not to get insurance but not because they're necessarily poor. You yourself are a great example of this (adult under 35). Not all of these people warrant your sentimental liberal socialism....but your leftist propagandists sure use their numbers...

America's 44 million uninsured: Who are they?

By Samuel G. Dawson
Opinion

We constantly hear of the need for a national single-payer medical system because of the 44 million Americans who don't have medical insurance coverage. Since the election, politicians wanting to address moral issues speak of the "immorality of the 44 million uninsured." While some are concerned about shortfalls in Social Security, others point out that Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls are already many times worse! Before we let the politicians commit us to universal medical coverage, it might be wise to find out who these millions of uninsured are.

A significant percentage are not Americans at all, but illegal immigrants and other non-citizens. Should we be obligated to pay for their medical care? I'm nearly afraid to ask. If my next-door neighbor didn't buy insurance himself but came to my house with a gun and forced me to buy it for him, it'd be a crime and he'd be prosecuted. However, if legislation is passed to make the responsible among us buy insurance for the irresponsible, if we don't toe the line, the guys in the white Fords will come for us with their guns. And if we resist, they won't be prosecuted.

Another large group comprises children whose parents either cannot or will not provide medical insurance for them. Nowadays, that means the ones who work and pay for such for their own children should work even harder and longer and pay for the children of the irresponsible, too.

A significant portion of the medically uninsured are adults under 35. At that age, I thought I was invincible, too, but I didn't expect others to work hard to pay for my medical care.

Another significant group is the chronically uninsured - people who go without insurance either because they have not needed it or do not believe in it. Why not make them buy it rather than making the rest of us pay for it?

Also included in the 44 million is anyone unemployed and uninsured for one day during the year. Also included are those who won't take a job that provides "good" health coverage because they smoke dope every day and can't pass a urine test. So, we make the real dopes buy it for them. What an argument.

The number also includes the wealthy who self-insure. For example, Rush Limbaugh - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - is uninsured. He pays out of pocket. There are many wealthy like him. No matter how much you like Rush, do you want to work harder and longer to pay for his health care?

Also included are those who choose to spend their money for an SUV or tattoos instead of health insurance. Most of the "employed" uninsured make a conscious decision not to be insured. They want cable TV, cell phones, new cars, expensive vacations, and generally think that medical care should be "free" because it's a "right." Suppose these types don't want to insure their SUVs - should we buy that for them, too?

Among the 44 million are medical consumers who have "wised up" to the fact that paying cash for medical care is cheaper than insurance, as their doctors charge them as little as one-third of what they bill insurance companies for the same services. This can't be right. We should work harder to give them medical insurance so they can pay the full price!

The 44 million includes low-income people who are eligible for state-provided free or nominal-cost insurance but who don't bother to sign themselves or their children up for it. Does this justify flogging the ants into buying insurance for the grasshoppers?

Providing these numbers would be a good task for an enterprising investigative journalist, wouldn't it?

Does the number of uninsured even matter? No one can be denied health care. In that sense, there are no uninsured, as everyone has access to health care.

Why is it good to add another enormous government organization that collects a fee for managing (read:restricting) the normal relationship between doctor and patient? What is the value added?

Dr. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that probably the first country to have universal health care provided by the government was the Soviet Union.

After decades of socialized medicine, what was the result? In its final years, the Soviet Union was one of the few countries in the world with a declining life span and a rising infant mortality rate.

If universal health care is so great, why don't we add another layer of government control and improve things even more? While we're at it, we could add universal coverage for home, auto and life insurance. To pay for it all, we could even have income insurance.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1399437/posts

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Socialized medicine will not fix the problem. You cant pay for something, if you have no money. And we cannot afford to pay for every single person. The government is not doing a good job with anything. We need a real solution, not just the latest fad.

Although our health care system definitely needs improvement, this country doesn't have quite as bad a problem as some people would like you to think.

First of all I'd like to correct the popular impression that one third of the people in the U.S. do not have heath care. The more accurate figure is more like 44 million, or about one sixth of the population.

This misrepresentation probably came about from a report like this:


Who knows how many of those "working families" are illegals with their anchor babies...

Secondly, of this 44 million without health insurance, many are choosing not to get insurance but not because they're necessarily poor. You yourself are a great example of this (adult under 35). Not all of these people warrant your sentimental liberal socialism....but your leftist propagandists sure use their numbers...

 

[red states rule]

so much fighting, I feel like im on the jerry springer board.

People should respect other peoples religious beliefs, even if they dont agree with, and not try to convert others to them, by degrading those beliefs.

This is my common sense rule: only if a belief is kill someone, or put them in jail, for being not my religion, then i have a problem.

But you cant really argue beliefs, only opinions.

Libs are the ones with the intolerance problem

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree that overall, liberalism is intolerant of anything or anyone that does not bow down to them.

Libs are the ones with the intolerance problem

 

[red states rule]

I agree that overall, liberalism is intolerant of anything or anyone that does not bow down to them.

The only difference between a liberal and the Pope is, the Pope asks you to kiss his ring

 

[Larkinn]

That's a personal choice I guess. Most people wouldn't be willing to live in taht kind of pain. newsflash: the fact that you need a new knee means the one you have probably hurts pretty bad.

Not particularly. The only page I could find with the cost for that type of surgery was one in India offering it for cheaper...but they say it costs around $35,000 to get that.

I am 23 years old and a recent college graduate. No matter how much I ******* want something that costs $35k, there is no way in hell I can afford that. I don't think I could even take out that much in private loans.

yet another incorrect statement. It a true story about how the system you advoacte failed someone.

And there are tons of stories about how the US healthcare failed someone. Learn a little bit about logic...anecdotal evidence is useless.

We are talking about systems that deal with 20 million and 300 million people respectively. If you look at one failure or success and base the system on that one person, the system you come up with will be horrendous.

Do to health care costs most places aren't going to hire more doctors than they need. So in terms of supply that means there will be at least enough to satisfy demand or less than that.

But if its a government system there is no need to make a profit, and hence we can have extra doctors on hand.

I believe in doing things the best way possible. Government has shown time and time again that it is generally the poorest method of accomplishing anything

*sigh*...healthcare is different than other things, we've already gone over this and I've explained why.

Government pays for military they don't buld it

Err, yes they do. Do you think our military is private or something?

Government pays for roads, they dont build them

Depends on the government.

Besides the fact, that this is irrelevant to the point since I am more than happy to just have government pay for healthcare, not build (build?) it.

I can agree there are some things any government should provide, healthcare is not one of them.

Well at least this is a reasonable argument. I disagree with it, but its reasonable.

and there are consequences in choosing not to play that game.

Yes, there are negative material consequences for behaving ethically. I freely and willingly condemn those who do not suffer those material consequences because they act unethically.

Sure, but you're not giveing. Im not saying our healthcare can't be improved, but you are insistant the govt is the one and only answer. the more dependent you become on government the more control it has over you.

Tell me how then. Saying "oh well come up with a solution for yourself" isn't a valid anwser. I do have a solution, you are saying that there are better ones out there...if you really believe that, you should be able to find one and present it here.

A lot of them yes.

Bullshit.

Not that you will believe that. Most people simply aren't willing to put forth the effort it takes to achieve anything. the majority peole aren't willing to go to school for a third of their lives to become lawyers or doctors.

A third of their lives? Eh perhaps for doctors, but not for lawyers. I'll be one by the time I am 26...Its only a 3 year post-grad program.

And don't tell me that its easy to get into law school and that anyone can do it with hard work. This is something I have extensive knowledge about, and I will tell you right now it ain't true. I know someone who studied for 2 (yes TWO) years to do well on the LSAT. Nope...she didn't do well enough.

many aren't willing to put in the effort of creating their own businesss. Believe what you will but there just aren't that many people living under these insurmounatable odds.

Nothing is insurmountable. If you are intelligent, lucky, in the right place at the right time, etc, etc. But I don't think people should die because of lack of healthcare and a lack of one of those opportunities.

I know you can work your way up. My mom did it. But she has very close to a genius IQ. Even with that she worked herself to the bone most of her life to get her where she is now...I really doubt she would have been able to get where she is now, if she had just happened to be stupider.

why?

Because I have a strong system of ethics that values fairness, equality, and opportunity based on merit, not on who your family is. Tell me, how are those people (who you claim can just rise up if they simply worked hard) are going to get anywhere if I, and others like me, take their places because of family connections?

You're hypothetical doesn't prove anything. I knew it wouldn't be long before the liberal elitist attitutde poked through.

My hypothetical shows, in a very obvious way, that quality of care must include how many people have access to that care. Because, as I showed, it is possible for MORE people to die if you improve services by cutting off a part of the population.

And really, spare me the bullshit about my "liberal elitist attitude". I don't burden you down with annoying asinine conservative generalizations, do me a favor and show the same basic decency.

in terms of your healthcare system it would be one of diminished quality

Really...stop saying this over and over again. I'm aware you think it would be diminished quality, start proving it.

Yes I do, i think we are an instant gratification society that want to take less and les responsibilty for our choices.

As opposed to the European societies which have a great social structure nowadays. The same social problems facing the US are facing Europe as well. They aren't any more naturally healthy than we are. The Japanese are, but thats supposedly because they eat a lot of fish.

As to the last statement that isn't even the fault of the physicians or facilities. that;s the fault of the people not accepting the trade offs of the country we live in and acting accordingly

It is an economic impossibility that everyone can make enough to afford their own healthcare. At least as the cost is now relative to average incomes.

No because they aren't corellary factors.

You claimed that increased care( responsiveness) would be more expensive...hence there should be a correlation between the two.

90 people need to see the doctor. Under the current system only 60 can afford to so the other 30 do go at all. Lets say now they all take 5 days to be diagnosed. Can you already see the problem? How do you avg out the people that didn't see the doctor. You can't make it zero because that would actually decrease the diagnosis time, when we want it to go up. We have not idead how many days to add because some may never see a doctor either.

I was assuming that they would go and see a doctor (ER) when their symptoms proved to be directly life threatening. When then, depending on their illness, it would either cost them much more to treat, or they would just die.

By the way your numbers are wrong, but mostly because I was unclear when I posted them in the first place as someone has pointed out. I will address that near the bottom.

It will make it worse for everyone. Not just rich. I certianly believe attempts should be made to find a solution to this problem, but there is a certail level of responsibility taht falls on us all as individuals. All I am advocating is that government not be teh soltution because i know what will happen.

Please explain to me how having poor healthcare is better than having no healthcare. It would NOT make it worse for the millions with no health insurance, I think we can be absolutely certain of that.

We aren't talking about no one. We're talking about a third of the population that has no health care compared to teh other two thirds that have excellent care.

I was making a point...taking it to the extreme to make you see how ridiculous it is not to include affordability with quality.

So to save that one third, one third that can do plenty of things on their own to reduce their risk of illnesses,

Are you joking? Can do plenty of things on their own to reduce their risk of illnesses? Well why didn't you when you got cancer? I mean it was prolly your own fault, right?

If you were in the proportion of the US who has no health insurance at all, you would have died. 100%. That, I find completely and utterly unacceptable.

and by your own admission lower the quality of the care that now all people will receive. How do you not see what an asanine solution that is?

Some people will recieve lower care, some people will recieve higher care. I am alright with that. Health is a basic human right and should NOT depend on your income status.

Gee Larkinn tell me whats so bad about tehse free clinics otherwise known as healthcare?

Generally they are run by non-profits on a shoestring budget. Hopefully the government would choose a different tact if it were to get into the healthcare business.

First of all I'd like to correct the popular impression that one third of the people in the U.S. do not have heath care. The more accurate figure is more like 44 million, or about one sixth of the population. Subtract 12 mil illegals and you got more like one tenth without actual health care.

Illegals aren't people now? I see.

Also the correct statistic is that 1/3 of the people in the US do not have private healthcare. Luckily the government is willing to pick up some of that slack.

Secondly, of this 44 million without health insurance, many are choosing not to get insurance but not because they're necessarily poor. You yourself are a great example of this (adult under 35). Not all of these people warrant your sentimental liberal socialism....but your leftist propagandists sure use their numbers...

What makes you think I'm not poor? I'm not impoverished, but I definitely can't afford to pay for private health insurance. Not even "not afford" but very simply "don't have the money". I suppose I could try and get a loan for it, but that seems fairly risky.

Secondly, of this 44 million without health insurance, many are choosing not to get insurance but not because they're necessarily poor. You yourself are a great example of this (adult under 35). Not all of these people warrant your sentimental liberal socialism....but your leftist propagandists sure use their numbers...

So they should die for their stupidity? If we are going to let people die for their stupidity, can we at least do it across the board and kill everyone under a certain IQ?

By the way SE...whats YOUR IQ?

 

[Larkinn]

The joys of for-profit healthcare....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_us/homeless_dumping

LOS ANGELES - Prosecutors have filed civil complaints against two hospitals and a transportation service accusing them of dumping homeless patients in Skid Row, including a paraplegic man found crawling in a gutter.
ADVERTISEMENT

Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center in Los Feliz and Methodist Hospital in Arcadia were accused of dumping two patients each in the downtown area over 14 months. The four people were sent there not by informed choice and without any plan for followup medical care so that the hospitals could rid themselves of the expense of caring for them, the compaints said.

Empire Enterprises, whose van driver allegedly left paraplegic Gabino Olvera at a Skid Row park as spectators protested, was named as a coconspirator. Olvera, 54, was found wearing a soiled hospital gown and a colostomy bag.

The complaints, filed Tuesday, seek fines against the hospitals and a court order banning the practice of dumping patients. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo is trying to use a state law concerning unfair business practices against the hospitals.

Kaylor Shemberger, executive vice president CHA Health Systems, the parent company of Hollywood Presbyterian, issued a statement saying Olvera told the van driver where to drop him off, against hospital policy.

"Following this incident, we instituted several new policies and intensified training to make sure nothing of the sort happens again," Shemberger said.

Methodist Hospital said its officials wanted to review the complaint before commenting.

Last year, the city's attorney's office filed false imprisonment and dependent care endangerment charges against Kaiser Permanente — the nation's largest nonprofit health maintenance organization — after a patient from Kaiser Permanente's Bellflower hospital was seen wandering Skid Row in a hospital gown.

Kaiser Permanente agreed last month in a settlement with the city to institute new discharge rules, provide more training for employees and allow a former U.S. attorney to monitor its progress.

Hollywood Presbyterian later said it too would adopt the same discharge rules for homeless patients. Delgadillo said at the time that Hollywood Presbyterian's adoption of the rules would have little effect on any legal action by his office.

Allegations that hospitals have dumped homeless patients in Skid Row have investigated by police and the city attorney's office for months.

 

[Bern80]

Not particularly. The only page I could find with the cost for that type of surgery was one in India offering it for cheaper...but they say it costs around $35,000 to get that.

I am 23 years old and a recent college graduate. No matter how much I ******* want something that costs $35k, there is no way in hell I can afford that. I don't think I could even take out that much in private loans.

Couple things to start off. it looks like we've both agreed to use the 44 million uninsured, out of 280 million that's about 15% of the population without any coverage of some type. And 85% or 236 million with coverage of some type govt or otherwise.

Secondly we obvioulsy have to come up with a defintion of quality we can agree on. turns out there are lots of defintionts of quality. here are some them.

qual·i·ty
2. character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing: the quality of a sound.
3. character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality.
4. high grade; superiority; excellence:
7. an accomplishment or attainment.
16. of or having superior quality: quality paper.
17. producing or providing products or services of high quality or merit: a quality publisher.

None of these fit the way you are trying to define the word. To determine something quality it has to be measureable. So you can't make a quality juddgement of the people that are receiving no health care because there's nothing to measure. They aren't in a hospital, they aren't being seen by a physician, they aren't haveing technology applied to their needs. You can't make a judgement as to teh level of care they received was good or bad beacuase they didn't receive any care at all.

What you are trying to say is that no care is poor quality care. that isn't a true statement. You have to have received care of some type to quantify that. What is analogous to what your trying to get me to beleive is that if two out of three people receive an apple, one gets a good apple, one gets a bad apple, and another gets no apple, that the person who didn't get an apple at all basically got a bad apple.

But if its a government system there is no need to make a profit, and hence we can have extra doctors on hand.

which will reduce the incentive for people to take up those professions, which will lead to a shortage. Unless of course you tax/subsidize it.

*sigh*...healthcare is different than other things, we've already gone over this and I've explained why.

You explained your one ambulance scenario. Healthcare is still a for profit indsutry. they still need to make money to function. under your system they will make less money. Great Britain has already seen examples of this. again unless you plan on subsidizing it. You can't legislate that something will be cheaper for the consumer and think that something isn't gonna have to give somewhere else for the producer.

Err, yes they do. Do you think our military is private or something?

Other than the training of actual people. All of the supplies and weapons contracts are private.

Depends on the government.

Besides the fact, that this is irrelevant to the point since I am more than happy to just have government pay for healthcare, not build (build?) it.

If it ran well and was as good as what I'm getting now so would I, but as someone who does have insurance we have both admitted that my quality of care would go down so why would I be happy to have government pay for my healthcare?

Yes, there are negative material consequences for behaving ethically. I freely and willingly condemn those who do not suffer those material consequences because they act unethically.

There isn't anything unethical about it. I can't help the people I know, nor can you. Some of them can help me get a job and as my friends they are more the happy to do so. most companies, rightfully so, would much rather hire someone who's character can be voucher for than a stranger. Do you really blame them for that?

Tell me how then. Saying "oh well come up with a solution for yourself" isn't a valid anwser. I do have a solution, you are saying that there are better ones out there...if you really believe that, you should be able to find one and present it here.

Education for one. Which is an aspect of prevention and hell I wouldn't even mind the government funding prevention throigh education. It would be cheaper than socializing the whole industry. Physicinas would still be able to do their jobs, but in the long run they should just have to do less of it.

Bullshit.

Believe what you want. Answer this: Do you know more people that could have achieved if they tried, or more people for whom it is simply impossible to achieve anything?

Nothing is insurmountable. If you are intelligent, lucky, in the right place at the right time, etc, etc. But I don't think people should die because of lack of healthcare and a lack of one of those opportunities.

Neither do I, but full blown socialized medicine I don't believe will prevent that. It's a simple trade off. Would you like the cost to kill someone or the wait to kill someone?

I know you can work your way up. My mom did it. But she has very close to a genius IQ. Even with that she worked herself to the bone most of her life to get her where she is now...I really doubt she would have been able to get where she is now, if she had just happened to be stupider.

Oh give me a break. it doesn't take even near genious IQ to live comfortably and to achieve something. That's prety disingenuous

Because I have a strong system of ethics that values fairness, equality, and opportunity based on merit, not on who your family is. Tell me, how are those people (who you claim can just rise up if they simply worked hard) are going to get anywhere if I, and others like me, take their places because of family connections?

Interesting book you may want to read. "The Millionaire Next Door" Do you know what percentage of millionaires are first generation millionaires, not born with a silver spoon in their mouth so to speak? Just over 80%

My hypothetical shows, in a very obvious way, that quality of care must include how many people have access to that care. Because, as I showed, it is possible for MORE people to die if you improve services by cutting off a part of the population.

You didn't prove anything. Because there are assumptions involved in that as well as information you don't know. For example it assumes that a high percentage of the uninsured will die to unnatural causes that were preventable. you don't know that to be true. Secondly the numbers wouldn even out. We just established that now only bout 15% of the population doesn't carry insurance of some type. You also don't need to prove that more people would die because that's the system you're already in. I would use that as your baseline. What you would have to prove is that fewer people will die under a socialized system. You would have to prove that fewer people woud die now that that 15% has coverage even though the physicians, facilities and technology quality go down (you will have to accept my factors of quality for the time being I guess)

remember teh mortality rate of teh 15% will decrease. I'll agree with that. But the mortality rate of the 85% is going to stay the same or go down due to the decrease in quality. I'm pretty sure that's not going to result in fewer deaths overall. The improvement in death rate of the 15% is not going to override the increase of the 85% that's pretty basic math.

we'll make it easy and use 1000 people. Under the current system then 150 people don't have coverage and we'll say 25% dies because they couldnt get affordable care, tha'ts roughly 38 people. OF the 85% lets say because they have coverage only a tenth will die. that's 85 people rougly. so total deaths for our group is 123. We also have to remmber however that even though they had helth care one thenth died so the same would be true of our 25% so we need to take a tenth off of our 38 that's about 4 (not practical to do parts of people). So of our 123, 89 deaths were unpreventable. that's 34 preventable deaths and that's the number that matters as far as the argument for socialized medicine is concerned. the number of death prevented because everyone had access to health care.

Now we have socialized medicine. now everyone has health care, which unfortunately means now every death counts. All are equally preventable or unpreventable. same 1000 people. Before we said a tenth of tehe population will die regardless of access to health care, but now unfortunately quality has gone down so a greater percentage of the total population will die unavoidabley say just by anther 5 percent. so 15% mortality rate. 15% of 1000 is 150. More deaths per 1000 people and 0 preventable due to the quality constraints

And really, spare me the bullshit about my "liberal elitist attitude". I don't burden you down with annoying asinine conservative generalizations, do me a favor and show the same basic decency.

I don't think there is a more elitist frame of mind then to call somone 'uneducated' because they disagree with you.

Really...stop saying this over and over again. I'm aware you think it would be diminished quality, start proving it.

I dont' have to the table does that for me. I can't help it if you define the word incorrectly.

You claimed that increased care( responsiveness) would be more expensive...hence there should be a correlation between the two.

No because there are multiple factors involved.

er care, some people will recieve higher care. I am alright with that. Health is a basic human right and should NOT depend on your income status.

If it were true that health care is a right then we would all already have it. We would have had it a long time ago. The forefathers were smart enough to grant rights that could not be gorssly taken advanatge of without certain levels of stipulations. Obviously one can take great advanatge of a system where health care is a right or the right to good health. That would mean I could smoke, do drugs, eat McDonalds every day and when I need gastic bypass a new lung and heart even though it was my own damn fault the governemnt is required to give me my good health back. Another defining thing of rights is if abused they can be taken away by the governmetn, like the right to bear arms. that could not be said of your health if you had a right to good health. that's why it isn't a right

Generally they are run by non-profits on a shoestring budget. Hopefully the government would choose a different tact if it were to get into the healthcare business.

Which is how Great Britain is running now. Afterall in a socializied system your budget is determined by the government and not the money made due to the performance of your hospital.

 

[Larkinn]

Couple things to start off. it looks like we've both agreed to use the 44 million uninsured, out of 280 million that's about 15% of the population without any coverage of some type. And 85% or 236 million with coverage of some type govt or otherwise.

Keep in mind that this government healthcare is what you are arguing against...so in your ideal world the number of Americans with no coverage would be around 100 million.

What you are trying to say is that no care is poor quality care. that isn't a true statement. You have to have received care of some type to quantify that. What is analogous to what your trying to get me to beleive is that if two out of three people receive an apple, one gets a good apple, one gets a bad apple, and another gets no apple, that the person who didn't get an apple at all basically got a bad apple.

You are arguing semantics. What I care about is that we have the healthiest population possible. This includes everyone. Do you agree with this ideal or not?

which will reduce the incentive for people to take up those professions, which will lead to a shortage. Unless of course you tax/subsidize it.

Err generally people join professions because they get paid, not because the company they work for makes a profit.

You explained your one ambulance scenario. Healthcare is still a for profit indsutry. they still need to make money to function

And they will get that money from the government.

You can't legislate that something will be cheaper for the consumer and think that something isn't gonna have to give somewhere else for the producer.

Of course the government will have to pay what the consumer isn't. I would assumed this would have been a given.

Other than the training of actual people. All of the supplies and weapons contracts are private.

I would say its the people that are the important part of our military, not the supplies and weapons contracts, yes?

If it ran well and was as good as what I'm getting now so would I, but as someone who does have insurance we have both admitted that my quality of care would go down so why would I be happy to have government pay for my healthcare?

Altruism. Compassion. A sense of fairness. You know, ethical reasons.

I fully admit that if you, in your situation, were to pick a choice out of purely selfish reasons, you would pick the one that we currently have. But I am appealing to your ethical side. Ethically, that is wrong and immoral.

There isn't anything unethical about it. I can't help the people I know, nor can you

People I know could have helped me. Not because I am intelligent or capable of qualified, but merely because of familial connections.

Some of them can help me get a job and as my friends they are more the happy to do so. most companies, rightfully so, would much rather hire someone who's character can be voucher for than a stranger. Do you really blame them for that?

Thats different. I am talking about school, something that is supposed to be done purely on merits, and I am talking about refusing to meet with a former student of my moms who basically reveres my mom, who is now an admissions officer at my top choice law school which I am currently waitlisted at.

Education for one. Which is an aspect of prevention and hell I wouldn't even mind the government funding prevention throigh education. It would be cheaper than socializing the whole industry. Physicinas would still be able to do their jobs, but in the long run they should just have to do less of it.

Education? I think people generally know what will make them healthy and not. Nobody thinks McDonalds is good for them, they just don't give a shit.

Believe what you want. Answer this: Do you know more people that could have achieved if they tried, or more people for whom it is simply impossible to achieve anything?

Nice bias in that question.

Here, I will fix it for you to make it more neutral, and then anwser it.

"Do you know more people that could have achieved their goals if they tried, or more people for whom would be unable to achieve their goals if they tried.

And the anwser to that is the former. But I may have a bit of a bias as I teach for an incredibly difficult test called the LSAT and come into contact with a lot of frustrated students.

Neither do I, but full blown socialized medicine I don't believe will prevent that. It's a simple trade off. Would you like the cost to kill someone or the wait to kill someone?

Whichever one will kill less people is what I want. And it seems, via the stats, that socialized medicine does that.

Oh give me a break. it doesn't take even near genious IQ to live comfortably and to achieve something. That's prety disingenuous

She grew up very poor. The first time she took the SAT's they nulled her score because the teacher said she was cheating. Know what their evidence was? That someone like her couldn't possibly have scored perfectly. She was forced to retake the test.

Her parents wouldn't co-sign for any loans so she had to co-sign for them all herself. In Law School she basically did speed for 3 years because otherwise she would not have had the ability to have 2 jobs, and be a full time law school student at the same time. She was also forced to get married to get more loans (they would only loan a certain amount to a single woman at that time...married couples could get more).

It takes someone pretty damn smart to move from poverty to wealth in this country. Its not so hard to take it from middle class to upper middle class or middle class to wealthy...but when you start in abject poverty, its very hard to get out of.

Interesting book you may want to read. "The Millionaire Next Door" Do you know what percentage of millionaires are first generation millionaires, not born with a silver spoon in their mouth so to speak? Just over 80%

And how many of those were born in poverty? I bet much much much lower than 80%.

I was born fairly poor, then was middle class, and now consider myself upper-middle class. At least if I group myself with my parents. Given all of those things and my situation at the moment, I can easily become a millionaire in...oh prolly 10 years or so. But the things that allowed me those privileges of going to college, of being in a town where good schools were, of having a good support system, are in part because my parents were middle class. It is a different story for those who are impoverished.

You didn't prove anything. Because there are assumptions involved in that as well as information you don't know

All I was proving was that it was a POSSIBILITY that more people would die, and hence give you a reason to believe that access to care should be included in quality of care since that is the goal here, right? To save as many people as possible?

Now we have socialized medicine. now everyone has health care, which unfortunately means now every death counts. All are equally preventable or unpreventable. same 1000 people. Before we said a tenth of tehe population will die regardless of access to health care, but now unfortunately quality has gone down so a greater percentage of the total population will die unavoidabley say just by anther 5 percent. so 15% mortality rate. 15% of 1000 is 150. More deaths per 1000 people and 0 preventable due to the quality constraints

And those are just numbers you made up...the difference between yours and mine are that I was trying to prove a more abstract point, that access should be included in quality, and you are trying to prove which system has actual better care. For the latter argument it is neccessary to use real numbers.

I don't think there is a more elitist frame of mind then to call somone 'uneducated' because they disagree with you.

Feel free to disagree with me about my opinions. That does not neccessarily make you uneducated (disagreement does not...how you disagree may...see rsr for a prime example). It is, however, a fact that hypotheticals can prove things. And if you disagree with, what I consider to be, basic facts such as that, I feel justified in calling you uneducated.

I dont' have to the table does that for me. I can't help it if you define the word incorrectly.

Lmao...now who is being elitist?

Which is how Great Britain is running now. Afterall in a socializied system your budget is determined by the government and not the money made due to the performance of your hospital.

No. The government has access to a much larger fund of money than your friendly neighborhood non-profit.

 

[red states rule]

The number of the uninsured is inflated. It includes illegals, people who are eligible, but not enrolled in government programs, folks who decline coverage

Government run health care is a bust in countries where it is being tried

 

[onedomino]

The number of the uninsured is inflated. It includes illegals, people who are eligible, but not enrolled in government programs, folks who decline coverage

Government run health care is a bust in countries where it is being tried

And socialized medicine in the UK is actually bragging about its reduction of patient wait times to the huge intervals specified in the article below. This is the kind of service you can expect from socialized medicine: average inpatient wait time of 7 weeks, and 25 percent of patients waited more than 13 weeks. When my wife recently needed inpatient therapy in a San Francisco hospital she was admitted immediately.

NHS waiting lists are lowest ever

NHS waiting list numbers have reached an all time low

complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6234523.stm

NHS waiting lists in England have fallen to an all-time low according to Department of Health figures.

Between October and November 2006, NHS inpatient waiting lists dropped by 8,000 to 769,000.

This meant the number of patients waiting for treatment was the lowest since the records began in 1987.

However, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb MP said the figures should be taken with a "strong note of caution".

These figures show that the NHS has slashed waiting times

He said: "The government's emphasis on bringing down waiting times above all else has pushed many hospitals into the red as they are forced to manipulate resources to meet strict targets.

"Patient care can also suffer as resources in some hospitals are diverted solely to meet waiting time targets."

But Health Minister Andy Burnham said the new figures provided clear evidence of an improving National Health Service. He said the average wait for inpatient treatment was now around seven weeks.

Testament to hard work

More than three quarters of inpatients had waited less than 13 weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting at the end of November 2006 was 6.9 weeks.

It is essential that sufficient resources are sustained to ensure that waiting lists do not rise in the future

British Medical Association

For outpatients, 86.9% had waited under eight weeks, and the median waiting time of those still waiting was 3.6 weeks.

 

[red states rule]

And socialized medicine in the UK is actually bragging about its reduction of patient wait times to the huge intervals specified in the article below. This is the kind of service you can expect from socialized medicine: average inpatient wait time of 7 weeks, and 25 percent of patients waited more than 13 weeks. When my wife recently needed inpatient therapy in a San Francisco hospital she was admitted immediately.

and this is the kind of health care libs want for all of us - and all the illegals they want to let in

 

[Bern80]

Keep in mind that this government healthcare is what you are arguing against...so in your ideal world the number of Americans with no coverage would be around 100 million.

Wrong, I am against government running the entire industry. Most states, have some form of state run issureance program for people temporarily out of work and things of that nature. i don't have a problem with that. So my numbers still apply.

You are arguing semantics. What I care about is that we have the healthiest population possible. This includes everyone. Do you agree with this ideal or not?

No I'm not, but your statement helps a little. I think you can agree that if what you areinterest is the healthiest population possible that is a vastly differerent than debating the quality of our physicians, facilities and technology.

And what you say you want is inaccurate as well. the healthiest populatin possible? that isn't really what you mean. You mean the healthiest population possible provided everyone in that populatin has healthcare of some type. You are willing to sacrafice the quality of our doctors and the facilites thus sacraficing the quality of care for 85% as long as 15% have not even actual care of some type, just access to it. That is unethical.

Err generally people join professions because they get paid, not because the company they work for makes a profit.

Government would then have to pay a fair market price of that labor. Do you believe the fair market price is more or less then what it currently is?

I know I wouldn't want to work very long for a for profit company that can't turn a profit. that's a sign that it is a poorly run business.

And they will get that money from the government.

The government can only pay them what the taxpayers give them.

Of course the government will have to pay what the consumer isn't. I would assumed this would have been a given.

Okay then lets compare that to how people normally pay for their healthcare. Usually the employer picks up part and the employee picks up part with teh employer usually paying a higher portion. now that gets transferred to the govt. You still pay your share and the governmetn covers the rest. but that's not what you want. You want health care to cost the consumer less or be free even. So the government now has to come up with even more money than what your employer pays. How do you suspect their going to accomplish that?

I would say its the people that are the important part of our military, not the supplies and weapons contracts, yes?

Neither work very well without the other, yes?

Altruism. Compassion. A sense of fairness. You know, ethical reasons.

I don't believe it is ethical to make the whole suffer for the sake of the few.

I fully admit that if you, in your situation, were to pick a choice out of purely selfish reasons, you would pick the one that we currently have. But I am appealing to your ethical side. Ethically, that is wrong and immoral.

yes how very selfish of me to want to live. But you don't understand that your position is the unethical one. To argue that it's okay for my health care to suffer in minnesota because it might allow someone in california to get better is ludicrous. You say your for equality so why is his health more important than mine? We're equal right? Lastly there is no real link between my health and his in the first place.

Education? I think people generally know what will make them healthy and not. Nobody thinks McDonalds is good for them, they just don't give a shit.

so how will government make peolpe give a shit?

Nice bias in that question.

Here, I will fix it for you to make it more neutral, and then anwser it.

"Do you know more people that could have achieved their goals if they tried, or more people for whom would be unable to achieve their goals if they tried.

And the anwser to that is the former. But I may have a bit of a bias as I teach for an incredibly difficult test called the LSAT and come into contact with a lot of frustrated students.

Your definition of success or well off enough is slightly skewed. Taking a test to get into law school isnt' exactley the bottom the barrel in terms of the ability to pay for healthcare. Not everyone wants to be a lawyer. For me it's the first. I see it all the time and I'm sure you do to. You see people not living up to their potential.

Whichever one will kill less people is what I want. And it seems, via the stats, that socialized medicine does that.

And my hypothecial proves you incorrect. there is nothing wrong with the numbers I used either. You can use any nubmers you want. It's what happens to the numbers when you switch systems. Under our current system there is x% of people that will die no matter what. Under your system that percent goes up because of a lack of quality in physicians, facilities and technology. The only way then for there to be fewer deaths is for that 15% with not coverage at all to somehow overcome the difference. that's pretty tough unless your assumption is that all or close to all are gonna die for not other reason than not haveing coverage.

It takes someone pretty damn smart to move from poverty to wealth in this country. Its not so hard to take it from middle class to upper middle class or middle class to wealthy...but when you start in abject poverty, its very hard to get out of.

Of course it does, not everyone gets to start on an equal playing field much as you would like them too. Most great things are born out of trying circumstances, not mediocrity.

I was born fairly poor, then was middle class, and now consider myself upper-middle class. At least if I group myself with my parents. Given all of those things and my situation at the moment, I can easily become a millionaire in...oh prolly 10 years or so. But the things that allowed me those privileges of going to college, of being in a town where good schools were, of having a good support system, are in part because my parents were middle class. It is a different story for those who are impoverished.

And you achieved something. You're going to become a lawyer. Do you think you are so special that few others can do the same?

All I was proving was that it was a POSSIBILITY that more people would die, and hence give you a reason to believe that access to care should be included in quality of care since that is the goal here, right? To save as many people as possible?

yes and my hypothetical shows that that isn't wahat will happen given the current proportion to people with access to healthcare and those without. the math simply doesn't work out. If it weren't almost a 9:1 ration I might start to think about it government intereventin as I viable solution, but sacrafcing the quality of care of the 85% so that everyone can now get just mediocre care is ridiculous.

And those are just numbers you made up...the difference between yours and mine are that I was trying to prove a more abstract point, that access should be included in quality, and you are trying to prove which system has actual better care. For the latter argument it is neccessary to use real numbers.

Not all of them. The 85% and 15% percent are accurate approximations. The made up numbers really don't make a difference what you use. What happens to those numbers is the important. hell don't use numbers at all except for the ones abovee. Make a simple equation out of it. You'll get teh same answer

Lmao...now who is being elitist?

There's nothing elitist about it. You're trying to measure quality in a segement of a population where there is no quality to measure. On top of that your saying the fact that you can't measure it means it's bad quality. What you really mean is what you said above. You don't mean overall quality of care you mean over all health of the population, those are different things.

No. The government has access to a much larger fund of money than your friendly neighborhood non-profit.

One most hospitals are for profit so they have access to lots of money. Second, again government only has what you give it.