Socialized Medicine, not what it's cracked up to be...

[Easy90]

Just another example...

Woman Goes for Leg Operation, Gets New Anus Instead

Thursday , March 20, 2008

A German retiree is taking a hospital to court after she went in for a leg operation and got a new anus instead, the Daily Telegraph is reporting.

The woman woke up to find she had been mixed up with another patient suffering from incontinence who was to have surgery on her sphincter.

The clinic in Hochfranken, Bavaria, has since suspended the surgical team.

Now the woman is planning to sue the hospital. She still needs the leg operation and is searching for another hospital to do it.
LINK (http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/all-she-wanted-was-a-leg-operation/)

[suedanim]

You'll have to come up with a much better argument than posting one example to illustrate socialized medicine is a bad idea.

There has been recent news about the overwhelming number of surgical errors and medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States, as well as life saving techniques, surgery and medication treatments denied to citizens by their HMO's.

Here are a few links on that subject...

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/surgical_errors_complications/malpractice.htm

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/blog/medical-malpractice/2007/10/neurosurgical-error-statistics.html

This one is old but still useful...

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

http://www.pwydhealthrecord.com/facts/stats

Heres a very good one... a link with LINKS!! :clapper:

http://www.justaskourdoctors.com/statistics.asp

Have fun!

What this country needs and CAN AFFORD is government funded, government regulated health care for every citizen, rich or poor. It works in Canada, it can work here. Lets get away from this thinking that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries should get rich off of sick people or that becoming a Doctor is a means to becoming wealthy. Healh care should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it.

[brien]

What this country needs and CAN AFFORD is government funded, government regulated health care for every citizen, rich or poor. It works in Canada, it can work here

Not quite true. It's not working in Canada so how can it work here? Canada, England, some Scandanavian and European countries are increasingly turning to privatization to solve their problems in the single payor system for health care.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week
<
Baker observes that securing prompt care used to mean a trip south. These days, he says, he’s able to get 80 percent of his clients care in Canada, via the private sector.
<
Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”:shock:

And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control).
<
America is right to seek a model for delivering good health care at good prices, but we should be looking not to Canada, but close to home—in the other four-fifths or so of our economy. From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.

We have the tools to reform health care in the US if only government will get out of the way.:thumbsup:

[apdst]

You'll have to come up with a much better argument than posting one example to illustrate socialized medicine is a bad idea.

It will be a governmental agency run by beareucrats. Go to the DMV, that should be argument enough against socialized medicine.

[ScareCrow]

One of the ladies who works for me is currently in the ICU of the local hospital after a doctor accidentally ruptured her stomach during what was supposed to be a routine colonoscopy. Medical mistakes happen in our system just like they can in a socialized system. If our current system is so great then why is America rated so low by the World Health Organization?

Something that occurs to me, if the private sector can do such a better job at things like taking care of the sick, then why don't we privatize our military? By using a privatized medical system we are putting our lives into the hands of this system on a daily basis, why not put our country and our freedoms into the same sort of system. Maybe we should do the same with our police, fire departments, and all other government programs since the private sector is so more capable. Of course I'm going to assume I'm going to find far fewer conservatives that agree with that than are against socialized medicine.

[Phyxius]

You'll have to come up with a much better argument than posting one example to illustrate socialized medicine is a bad idea.

It will be a governmental agency run by beareucrats. Go to the DMV, that should be argument enough against socialized medicine.


As opposed to letting private companies run it for profit? Go talk to an Enron investor, that should be argument enough against privatized medicine... :madlaugh:

[piratemonkey]

Sooo... once again.

Who here can explain why:

We have the most privatized healthcare system of any modern country.
Yet, we have the worst measurable healthcare outcomes of any modern country.
And, we pay 40% more per capita for our healthcare than any modern country.

OUR system is broken. Theirs just needs refinement.

[Shintao]

Just another example...

Woman Goes for Leg Operation, Gets New Anus Instead



Maybe if she didn't have her leg up her arse, the right treatment might have been performed.

[apdst]

Yet, we have the worst measurable healthcare outcomes of any modern country.

Socialized medicine is going to change that, how? The same doctors will be treating the patients. What's going to be different?

[preservanation]

All the wet hand slappers in favor of universal HC seem to think that after socialized medicine graces America, we will all get the same level of care, but it will all be Free!
This is a knuckleheaded assumption.

[apdst]

All the wet hand slappers in favor of universal HC seem to think that after socialized medicine graces America, we will all get the same level of care, but it will all be Free!
This is a knucklehead assumption.

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?

[Shintao]

All the wet hand slappers in favor of universal HC seem to think that after socialized medicine graces America, we will all get the same level of care, but it will all be Free!
This is a knuckleheaded assumption.


Same level of care? Sure! If you use UHC the same care in NY will be the sam care in Ca.

Why wouldn't the care be free? Back up your statement with URLs, documentation, references, and a full credit report please! :madlaugh:

[Shintao]

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?


1. Available to ALL Americans.
2. Longer life spans.
3. More live births per thousand.
4. Free

[AlanC]

Why wouldn't the care be free?

I can't believe I'm even answering this one. NOTHING in this world is free. Everything you have, everything you will have and everything you have had in the past has been paid for by someone.

Free Healthcare is an oxymoron. You pay for it directly, you will pay for it in taxes and you will find the unintended consequences of it sliding into every aspect of life.

If you think you or anyone else will get something for nothing out of this, I'd like some of what you are smoking.

[suedanim]

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?


1. Available to ALL Americans.
2. Longer life spans.
3. More live births per thousand.
4. Free



5. Oversight
6. Quality controls
7. Accountability
8. Inspections
9. Free

[apdst]

1. Available to ALL Americans.
2. Longer life spans.
3. More live births per thousand.
4. Free

Well, I'll agree with the free part.

Weren't you saying good things about the VA a while back?

5. Oversight
6. Quality controls
7. Accountability
8. Inspections

Now, that's just funny? oversight? quality control? accountability? inspections? Just who do you think is going to be taking care of all these things? The same doctor staffed medical oversight board that is doing it now?

So, ultimately, it's all about it being free. Right? It must be, because there's no way I'll believe that anyone is stupid enough to think that all those other things are realistic.

[preservanation]

All the wet hand slappers in favor of universal HC seem to think that after socialized medicine graces America, we will all get the same level of care, but it will all be Free!
This is a knucklehead assumption.

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?
Over to the same people who can't even run their own primaries?
Ever been to the DMV?
Multiply that times ten, and that'll give you an idea of what our HC system will look like under either of the Dem candidates.
It's effen gov, for Pete's sakes.
Did you like FEMA?
No!
That's them.
Same people...It's called G>O>V>E>R>N>M>E>N>T>

[suedanim]

Why wouldn't the care be free?

I can't believe I'm even answering this one. NOTHING in this world is free. Everything you have, everything you will have and everything you have had in the past has been paid for by someone.

Free Healthcare is an oxymoron. You pay for it directly, you will pay for it in taxes and you will find the unintended consequences of it sliding into every aspect of life.

If you think you or anyone else will get something for nothing out of this, I'd like some of what you are smoking.


Of course there will be taxes. Count me in! I'm eager to pay taxes if it means better health for all. Why should I get better health care than the homeless Desert Storm, Iraq or Vietnam vet sleeping in shelters or out in the cold under cardboard? The VA sucks. Medicare sucks and so does Medicaid even if they are better than nothing, they are often almost nothing.

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH (http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm)

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage. “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.

“The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”

Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since early February, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.

“Unless Congress takes action this year to avert the impending shortfall,” Greenstein said, “the increase in the number of children without health coverage is likely to accelerate in the year ahead.”

[apdst]

The VA sucks. Medicare sucks and so does Medicaid even if they are better than nothing, they are often almost nothing.

And you want the government to run the health care system????????

[suedanim]

Look...if the government can implement OSHA and EPA standards, the GLP Act...all of which I as a research histologist in experimental toxicologic pathology and neurobiology had to comply with... during my over 25 year career... I am confidant the guvment can implement SOPs for health care and enforce them. Sure it will create a new government jobs, more paperwork and it will cost money, but isn't your grandmother, the children who live in your city worth it??

If we expect it and can do it for industry and research we can do it for the health care industry.

[preservanation]

Interesting, some who are always complaining about Government making lousy decisions and oppressing the rights of citizens are the same ones who want to turn over 1/7th of our economy and the well being and health of ourselves and our families over to them.
This makes no sense.
Sorry.

[Drocket]

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?

Just to be clear then, your argument is that our current system of health insurance isn't a bureaucracy? Seriously? Seriously?

You've never gone through the joy of having to switch doctors because the guy you've been doing to for a decade suddenly is no longer covered for reasons that your insurance agency won't explain to you? You've never had to spend a week on the phone arguing because while your insurer covers the 10mg and 40mg doses of Medicine X, they absolutely DO NOT cover the 20mg dose that your doctor prescribed, and the best resolution they're willing to give you is to tell you to get the more expensive 40mg dose and only take half? You've never gone to the hospital and then had the insurance agency deny $1000 of the bill for absolutely random reason, then make you fill out for form 2847-C in triplicate to contest it, then agree to pay an additional $200 and still deny the other $800, and then you fill out form 2847-C in triplicate AGAIN to get them to pay ANOTHER $200, then fill out form 2847-C in triplicate AGAIN, until finally you pay the last $400 of the bill because, fuck it, its easier than filling out the fucking paperwork?

Seriously?

I honestly have difficulty imagining that a government-run bureaucracy, no matter how bad, can be worse than the shit that we have now.

[suedanim]

The VA sucks. Medicare sucks and so does Medicaid even if they are better than nothing, they are often almost nothing.

And you want the government to run the health care system????????


Medicare and Medicaid are not adequately supervised or implemented. VA? At the whim of the CIC and Congress at present, also poorly supervised and implemented.

We need health care reform in a major sweeping well funded package.

[apdst]

Just to be clear then, your argument is that our current system of health insurance isn't a bureaucracy? Seriously? Seriously?

I never said that the current system is perfect. Of course, it's not, it's run by humans. However, making the health care system into a government agency isn't the answer.

At the whim of the CIC and Congress at present, also poorly supervised and implemented.

What makes you think that a government run health care system is going to be any different?????

[preservanation]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.
One thing I know, no matter what it is, it can always be worse.
IMO, reliance on the gov is the best avenue to that result.

[apdst]

Instead of pushing for government ran health care, how bout the Libbos push to get jobs for all these uninsured people?

[piratemonkey]

Yet, we have the worst measurable healthcare outcomes of any modern country.

Socialized medicine is going to change that, how? The same doctors will be treating the patients. What's going to be different?


Incentives.

The way our system is set up in the US, MD's make the most money off of the most expensive tests/procedures.

[piratemonkey]

I just can't comprehend why anyone would want to turn our nation's healthcare system into a beauracracy. Why would anyone believe that that would be a good idea?

Just to be clear then, your argument is that our current system of health insurance isn't a bureaucracy? Seriously? Seriously?


A higher percentage of healthcare dollars goes to overhead in the US system than in what you are calling "socialized" systems.

Think about that.

[Easy90]

Some really scary socialists here. Amazing! If you don't mind going in for a knee operation and coming out with a new "anus" I guess socialized medicine is for you. Personally, I've seen government run medical care...and I know the private system is better....Canada is bankrupt thanks to their medical system, and their people are clamoring to get US health care....and some of you think that's the model for us. It's pathetic.

[apdst]

The way our system is set up in the US, MD's make the most money off of the most expensive tests/procedures.

That's called profit margin.

[Elrathin]

Some really scary socialists here. Amazing! If you don't mind going in for a knee operation and coming out with a new "anus" I guess socialized medicine is for you.


So are you saying there are absolutely no major screwups with privatized medicine? Please tell me you are.

[Drocket]

So are you saying there are absolutely no major screwups with privatized medicine? Please tell me you are.

Yes, but those are all the result of government regulations. If only we got rid of any and all regulations, then the magical free market fairy would swoop in and everything would be perfect.

[Shintao]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.


Especialy those millions who have no insurance coverage.

[4Reaganomics]

If you enjoy waiting in line for surgery, then socialized medicine is for you.

If you like the idea of spending 1.1 trillion dollars in the next ten years on inefficiency, then socialized medicine is for you.

If you like the idea of people no longer coming from around the world to get the top notch medical treatment that we have to offer, while forcing our people to go overseas for proper care, then socialized medicine is for you

If you believe that healthcare should be provided for those who fail to produce at the expense of hard working Americans, then socialized medicine is for you.

[4Reaganomics]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.


Especialy those millions who have no insrance coverage.


I don't have to wait absurdly long for top of the line surgeons to save my life if God forbid something happens.

I am a producer and I work hard and pay for my healthcare. Therefore, I get top notch treatment.

85% of Americans have fantastic healthcare, you want to make sure that 100% of Americans have bad healthcare and have to see government doctors in back rooms at government hospitals controlled by a centrist figure.

[Shintao]

Why wouldn't the care be free?

I can't believe I'm even answering this one. NOTHING in this world is free. Everything you have, everything you will have and everything you have had in the past has been paid for by someone.

Free Healthcare is an oxymoron. You pay for it directly, you will pay for it in taxes and you will find the unintended consequences of it sliding into every aspect of life.

If you think you or anyone else will get something for nothing out of this, I'd like some of what you are smoking.

I asked a legtimate question. Does it have a co-pay? Is it denied to anyone because of wealth?

I am not arguing the worker taxes will not pay for it. And WHO pays the taxes is up to American tax payers.

[4Reaganomics]

Only the rich will pay tax increases under the Democratic administration's plan.

AKA, anyone making over 31,000 dollars a year, the new rich.

Somebody better tell the local school bus driver that he is rich

[Shintao]

If you enjoy waiting in line for surgery, then socialized medicine is for you.

Where do you get treatment that you don't stand in a line?

If you like the idea of spending 1.1 trillion dollars in the next ten years on inefficiency, then socialized medicine is for you.

Have any proof to back that up? I didn't hink so.

If you like the idea of people no longer coming from around the world to get the top notch medical treatment that we have to offer, while forcing our people to go overseas for proper care, then socialized medicine is for you

Sounds like Americans running to China for organ transplants and Seniors running to Canada for presciptions drugs. Does that mean private medicine is for us - You bet!!!

If you believe that healthcare should be provided for those who fail to produce at the expense of hard working Americans, then socialized medicine is for you.


Surely do!! You don't mind tax rebates you didn't earn, so why should I care if Americans get medical treatment they didn't earn??

[Shintao]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.


Especialy those millions who have no insrance coverage.


I don't have to wait absurdly long for top of the line surgeons to save my life if God forbid something happens.

I am a producer and I work hard and pay for my healthcare. Therefore, I get top notch treatment.

85% of Americans have fantastic healthcare, you want to make sure that 100% of Americans have bad healthcare and have to see government doctors in back rooms at government hospitals controlled by a centrist figure.


Hmm, pretty hard for you to argue an American socialized plan will sddenly be bad - when we don't even have it. Whereis your proof of this "bad healthcare??" We already know private health care sucks, so..........:clapper:

[4Reaganomics]

Americans get medical treatment they earn because they pay for it. It is a product and their earnings are used as the means of payment for this product.

In terms of the cost of Healthcare, obviously you didn't read Hillary's budget plan. How could you support a candidate without knowing what she wants to spend or what she plans to do?

DO yourself a favor and next time inform yourself. Until then, I will inform you

Clinton to offer health care plan By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer


DES MOINES, Iowa - For months, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a plan to bring health care to every American. She was to make good on that pledge Monday, unveiling a sweeping proposal requiring everyone to carry health insurance and offering federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage.

With a price tag of about $110 billion per year, Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" represents her first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since 1994, when the plan she authored during her husband's first term collapsed.

The former first lady says she has learned from that experience, which almost derailed Bill Clinton's presidency and helped put Republicans in control of Congress for years to come. Aides say she has jettisoned the complexity and uncertainty of the last effort in favor of a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control and consumer choice.

The centerpiece of Clinton's plan is the so-called "individual mandate," requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.

"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser, told The Associated Press. "If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it."

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has already laid out proposals to improve health care quality and reduce costs. She was to release her universal health care plan in Iowa, the first voting state.

With 47 million Americans currently uninsured, the Democratic presidential contenders have been united in advocating universal coverage. They have parted ways on certain specifics, including the individual mandate, which has detractors from both ends of the political spectrum.

Republican skeptics say it would be too invasive and would restrict personal freedom and choice. Liberal Democrats have expressed concern that such a mandate would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families — a concern shared by Obama, who has said individuals cannot be forced to purchase insurance until the cost of coverage is substantially reduced.

Aides said Clinton believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage.

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.

For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare, and the health insurance plan currently offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either government-run program, but aides stress that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the Clinton plan.

Aides said Clinton will propose several specific measures to pay for her plan, including an end to some of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year. Edwards has vowed to completely repeal the tax cuts for high earners to pay for the cost of his plan, estimated at $90 billion-$120 billion per year, while Obama would pay for his plan in part by letting the tax cuts expire in 2010.

Clinton is also expected to stress several cost-saving measures to help pay for universal coverage. She's already recommended several such proposals, such computerized medical record-keeping and a reduction in federal overpayments to hospitals and health maintenance organizations. She would also promote wellness and disease prevention as a way to reduce costs.

Clinton is sure to court danger from the health insurance industry by proposing several industry reforms. Among other things, she would require insurance companies to provide coverage to all consumers regardless of pre-existing conditions.

The insurance industry helped kill Clinton's earlier attempt at health care reform through a multibillion-dollar media and lobbying campaign that included television ads featuring a middle-class couple named Harry and Louise fretting over having to get their insurance through a new "billion-dollar bureaucracy."

Republicans have already readied attacks on the Clinton plan. The Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to reporters Monday dubbing it "Hillarycare" and questioning why she waited months to release a plan.

Also, I don't wait in line for care more than a couple of days, and if I needed surgery it would be done is quickly as I needed it because I am a paying customer. Universal care has made some Canadians have to come to the U.S. because they simply couldn't wait 4 months for a serious procedure

[4Reaganomics]

When twins are conjoined at the head where are they taken? Is it the immaculate innovative country of Canada? No, it is where free market innovation takes place, that is the good old U S of A

[Shintao]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.


Especialy those millions who have no insrance coverage.


I don't have to wait absurdly long for top of the line surgeons to save my life if God forbid something happens.

I am a producer and I work hard and pay for my healthcare. Therefore, I get top notch treatment.

85% of Americans have fantastic healthcare, you want to make sure that 100% of Americans have bad healthcare and have to see government doctors in back rooms at government hospitals controlled by a centrist figure.

Nearly 6,000 people died waiting for an organ transplant in 2006 — that's 16 people a day. (Mayo Clinic Stats)

[Shintao]

Only the rich will pay tax increases under the Democratic administration's plan.

Hmmm, you might think twice about preempting anymore wars in foreign countries leading to voters throwing your arse out and dems taking control to tax the rich. Just a thought. :lmao:

[4Reaganomics]

ATTENTION

I am still waiting for a reply on your claim that I had no proof of healthcare costing 1.1 trillion dollars over 10 years

CONSIDERING, the proof is your own choice for president's budget plan



Address that first instead of dodging the fact that you have been caught, please

Secondly, will making lines longer help with the length of the lines that are in place for certain treatments like an organ transplant?

[4Reaganomics]

Only the rich will pay tax increases under the Democratic administration's plan.

Hmmm, you might think twice about preempting anymore wars in foreign countries leading to voters throwing your arse out and dems taking control to tax the rich. Just a thought. :lmao:


Taxing the rich, AKA people who make 31 thousand dollars a year or more

You would know this, because you are familiar with Hillary's budget plan

O wait, you have no clue about Hillary's budget plan, and you are avoiding the fact that you have been exposed.

[Shintao]

ATTENTION

I am still waiting for a reply on your claim that I had no proof of healthcare costing 1.1 trillion dollars over 10 years

CONSIDERING, the proof is your own choice for president's budget plan

I had not realized how cheap Nationl Health care is going to be, but thanks for bringing up the point.



Address that first instead of dodging the fact that you have been caught, please

Caught? LAMO!!! Here is a quote for you about the current privatized medicine to eat crow with......

"Expenditures in the United States on health care were nearly $1.9 trillion in 2004,"
http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/ti2004-1-1.cfm

And that is 1 year!!



Secondly, will making lines longer help with the length of the lines that are in place for certain treatments like an organ transplant?


You are still making assumptions and have no proof to the length of lines.

[4Reaganomics]

Do you understand that Socialized Medicine will cost the government 1.1 trillion dollars more than it currently does?

Who do you think is going to pay for the uninsured who do not produce?
Hard working Americans via tax raises, for anyone who makes more than 31 thousand dollars a year

Are you implying that Healthcare costs less under Hillary according to your graph that you posted?

You are still running from the fact that you claimed that there was no proof that Universal healthcare will cost 1.1 trillion dollars for American tax payers over 10 years.

Do you realize your expenditure figures do not refute this?

[Shintao]

Only the rich will pay tax increases under the Democratic administration's plan.

Hmmm, you might think twice about preempting anymore wars in foreign countries leading to voters throwing your arse out and dems taking control to tax the rich. Just a thought. :lmao:


Taxing the rich, AKA people who make 31 thousand dollars a year or more

You would know this, because you are familiar with Hillary's budget plan

O wait, you have no clue about Hillary's budget plan, and you are avoiding the fact that you have been exposed.


I can tell you are fascist oriented from the RNC propaganda machine. "Caught" "Exposed" I never said at any time or point in this thread that I was familar with her plan. You assumed that, you have now said so.

I have only argued for NHC based on German NHC as my model of a large socilized medical program in a large industrial world. So what if we spend a trillion on Americans medical care ovr ten years? We spent a trillion on Bush's war in 5, and I notice you still get rebates and tax cuts. You hate Americans or something along those lines? Don't mind paying medical for Iraqies, just Americans you hate here?

[4Reaganomics]

No, we did not spend a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq over 5 years. There is no figure that high

but you have no need for facts, you can't even read your own choice for president's budget plan, let alone reports about the costs of the war.




You sir hate America because you are infringing upon the very individual liberties that John Adams and James Madison along with Thomas Jefferson and others gave us a right to. We have the right to choose our own Doctor and our own healthcare plan, you believe in a socialist form of medicine.

You support Socialism, and nothing is more against America

[Shintao]

Do you understand that Socialized Medicine will cost the government 1.1 trillion dollars more than it currently does?

Who do you think is going to pay for the uninsured who do not produce? Hard working Americans via tax raises, for anyone who makes more than 31 thousand dollars a year

I suppose the taxpayer & corporations will pay for it. But don't worry, if we can spend two billion a week on the Iraq war, we can spend two billion a week on medical care for the American people.

Are you implying that Healthcare costs less under Hillary according to your graph that you posted?

I didn't post a graph? I posteded a Kiaser Ins page & quote from that page which would indicate privatized medical is much higher than the 1.1 T you mentioned of the Hillary plan.

You are still running from the fact that you claimed that there was no proof that Universal healthcare will cost 1.1 trillion dollars for American tax payers over 10 years.

Oh, not at all!I accept you figure - you have no reason to lie. But 1.1 Trillion is chicken feed compared to what Americans are currently paying private drs. in America for medical care. I amazed Hills figure is so low. Are you sure she isn't saying 1.1 T a year over the ten years? Seems low to me.

Do you realize your expenditure figures do not refute this?
[/quote]

[suedanim]

Instead of pushing for government ran health care, how bout the Libbos push to get jobs for all these uninsured people?


Over 44 million of them, most of whom are children, disabled, elderly, mentally ill and working poor and middle class whose employers cannot or will not carry any medical for their workers and medical insurance is to costly for them to afford??? THOSE people, you mean.

$3-400 a month is groceries or rent, heat bill.. And in the present economy, sorry, many are struggling just to afford the basics for their families.

[suedanim]

Some really scary socialists here. Amazing! If you don't mind going in for a knee operation and coming out with a new "anus" I guess socialized medicine is for you. Personally, I've seen government run medical care...and I know the private system is better....Canada is bankrupt thanks to their medical system, and their people are clamoring to get US health care....and some of you think that's the model for us. It's pathetic.



No..whats PATHETIC is that you didn't even bother to read the links I sent you.

[suedanim]

Exactly, apdst...
Some don't realize how good we have it.


Especialy those millions who have no insrance coverage.


I don't have to wait absurdly long for top of the line surgeons to save my life if God forbid something happens.

I am a producer and I work hard and pay for my healthcare. Therefore, I get top notch treatment.

85% of Americans have fantastic healthcare, you want to make sure that 100% of Americans have bad healthcare and have to see government doctors in back rooms at government hospitals controlled by a centrist figure.


Careful your arrogance is showing. Glad you get top notch treatment. But, for my elderly neighbor who died two days ago because he needed a liver transplant and no insurance, that doesn't much comfort his family to know.

Bad health care.... oh no... will never happen. We live in the mst wealthy country in the world with the medical expertise in great numbers and technology to make this work with equal and fair medical care for all.

[suedanim]

You'll have to come up with a much better argument than posting one example to illustrate socialized medicine is a bad idea.

There has been recent news about the overwhelming number of surgical errors and medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States, as well as life saving techniques, surgery and medication treatments denied to citizens by their HMO's.

Here are a few links on that subject...

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/surgical_errors_complications/malpractice.htm

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/blog/medical-malpractice/2007/10/neurosurgical-error-statistics.html

This one is old but still useful...

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

http://www.pwydhealthrecord.com/facts/stats

Heres a very good one... a link with LINKS!! :clapper:

http://www.justaskourdoctors.com/statistics.asp

Have fun!

What this country needs and CAN AFFORD is government funded, government regulated health care for every citizen, rich or poor. It works in Canada, it can work here. Lets get away from this thinking that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries should get rich off of sick people or that becoming a Doctor is a means to becoming wealthy. Healh care should be a right, not a privilege for those who can afford it.



Man I hate quoting myself... but if you'll simply READ the link you'll certainly come over the my way of thinking.

:grrrr::innocent:

[4Reaganomics]

Do you even comprehend her healthcare plan????? Have you read it????????

Are you under the impression that all of those expenditures disappear and the magical cost of healthcare is 110 billion a year? I hope not

It will cost the federal government 1.1 trillion over ten years and still costs many Americans a good deal of their own private money as well. You clearly haven't read the plan if you believe that those expenditure figures go away and everyone gets insured at much less of a cost with a more efficient system.

Please tell me you didn't think that, my god the ignorance

She wants to make it mandatory for businesses of even small stature to give their employees healthcare, which will inevitably lead to the loss of jobs, probably thousands

She wants to charge people the same premium (yes, oh my god, you mean it isn't all covered in the 1.1 trillion) regardless of their health status.

Meaning I could be paying the same rate for healthcare as someone completely healthy as someone who has been in and out of hospitals every week for the last 3 years and costing way more than I am.

Do you still believe that it is cheaper and more efficient for consumers?



Please read her budget plan and former and current healthcare procedures so I do not have to inform you of the premises and agenda

I feel like I have to explain it to a fourth grader

Government pays more, tax payers pay more, premiums are the same for sick and healthy, you can't choose your doctor, you could get fined for attempting to buy non-government approved healthcare


ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to USSR

[4Reaganomics]

I maintain that if I needed a medical innovative breakthrough procedure done tomorrow and I could chose anywhere in the world to have this procedure to save my life

it would be in the good old USA, where innovation from free markets has lead to miraculous break through

[Shintao]

No, we did not spend a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq over 5 years. There is no figure that high

but you have no need for facts, you can't even read your own choice for president's budget plan, let alone reports about the costs of the war.

You know Harvard where Bush went to college? They say you are wrong!

"The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war."




You sir hate America because you are infringing upon the very individual liberties that John Adams and James Madison along with Thomas Jefferson and others gave us a right to. We have the right to choose our own Doctor and our own healthcare plan, you believe in a socialist form of medicine.

Ahh, the personal attack, a sure sign you are losing the debate. Hate America? LMAO! Lets see here,...

You hate the US Constitution because it begins with "WE THE PEOPLE" and not "ME THE PEOPLE."

You won't be found defending the general welfare clause and children of America. To promote the general welfare is the last thing a replug would dream of. Spend biilions a week on foreigners is ok, but starve the American homeless mothers & children in the nations gutters.

You can't say the pledge of allegiance to the flag because you would have to pledge "With Liberty and Justice for all."

You want no part of justice for all people, preferring to let criminals run our government and Illegals run the justice department, and let liars of the grand jury & obstruction of justice escape prison sentences. Unequal, upside down kangaroo justice is more to your liking, where testamony is obtain by torturing and murdering prisoners.

You can't take the oath to the American Creed because it demands you "upon those principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity..."

You hate American humanity, those barely making it and in need of social programs, even infants straving under bridges. Forget Equality, you hate the poor or helping or caring for thier basic needs, like National health Care or minimum wage increases.

You cannot read the Statute of Liberty plaque because its says "Give me your tired, your poor,..."

You hate the poor Americans.



You support Socialism, and nothing is more against America


Really? America was founded on socialism and grew up on socialism, so your statement is absurd. Still want to make personal attacks or just debate NHC?

[suedanim]

4reaganomics:

Yet, despite all that, you're quite happy with a 9 + trillion dollar debt... funding wars chasing the elusive phanthom terrorists and securing our oil interests in the bargain.

How many billion do we spend in one month in Iraq? You're fine with that, but health care...oh no, that will never do!


Iraq war cost estimates run into the trillions (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0310/p16s01-wmgn.html)
New book says war will cost at least $3 trillion before it's over.
By David R. Francis | columnist
from the March 10, 2008 edition


Studies: Iraq Costs US $12B Per Month (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4417483)

Studies: Iraq War Will Cost $12 Billion Per Month in 2008, Tripling Rate of War's Early Years

[4Reaganomics]

You are kidding me

Harvard referenced real cost of Iraq war, I am talking about nominal cost of Hillarycare and the Iraq war


Do you know the difference between nominal costs and real costs?

Do you?

I believe it was our founding fathers who created our country to escape control and unfair taxation in order to give us the right to make our own decisions with our own money, time, and effort.

Show me where Madison said everyone has to see the doctor that the government tells them to and has no liberty to chose.


I DO PLEDGE LIBERTY FOR ALL. DO YOU KNOW WHAT LIBERTY MEANS?

IT MEANS THE CONDITION OF BEING FREE FROM RESTRICITION AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL

[Shintao]

I maintain that if I needed a medical innovative breakthrough procedure done tomorrow and I could chose anywhere in the world to have this procedure to save my life

Would that be because you are a male?




it would be in the good old USA, where innovation from free markets has lead to miraculous break through


Heres your innovation,...............

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush used his veto power Wednesday for the first time since taking office 5 1/2 years ago, saying that an embryonic stem-cell research bill "crossed a moral boundary."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html

"In February 2001 she told the Conservative Political Action Conference that President Bush's reinstatement of the "Mexico City Policy" (which prohibits federal funds going to organizations that provide, even as only part of their services, abortion) was proof that he is pro-life "in his heart." She also advocated against administration approval of RU-486."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/health/main3380290.shtml

Can offshore innovative abortion ships be far off with Republicans in charge??



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/health/main3380290.shtml

[4Reaganomics]

I will ask the same questions again which you once again refuse to answer

DO you know the difference between real costs and nominal costs? Your prior posts about the Harvard study of the cost of the war and its comparison to a nominal figure, suggests that you do not.

Do you know what liberty means now? After claiming that I did not support it for all.

[Shintao]

You are kidding me

Harvard referenced real cost of Iraq war, I am talking about nominal cost of Hillarycare and the Iraq war


Do you know the difference between nominal costs and real costs?

Do you?

Yes. Do you know the difference between fact & fiction when making a fantasy projection of hillary's NHC? "bad healthcare"

I believe it was our founding fathers who created our country to escape control and unfair taxation in order to give us the right to make our own decisions with our own money, time, and effort.

Wow! You skipped the pilgrims altogether!

Show me where Madison said everyone has to see the doctor that the government tells them to and has no liberty to chose.

Another of your crack pot dreams I suppose, because I never said a word about that. You did. Didn't You? (a test)


I DO PLEDGE LIBERTY FOR ALL. DO YOU KNOW WHAT LIBERTY MEANS?

IT MEANS THE CONDITION OF BEING FREE FROM RESTRICITION AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL


That is your definition. A narrow interpretation at best, and a wish to destroy America and all it stands for in your conservative philosophy.

[4Reaganomics]

That is the definition according to Merriam-Webster and most referenced dictionaries

I hate to head off to bed, but I will return tomorrow if you would like to debate this further. Until then, it has been fun discussing and goodnight.

[4Reaganomics]

I believe that everyone deserves individual rights and freedoms. I believe that it is in someone's interest to learn how to fish instead of the government giving them fish.

I believe what Greenspan wrote on the issue, something along the lines of

"There are many people who are in unfortunate circumstances that may not be their own fault. However, you have to give them tough love. In the end, tough love is love"

I can assure you that I act on behalf of my individual liberties and the liberties of my fellow Americans because I feel that it is what is in the best interest of society, and not strictly myself.

It has been a pleasure talking about the issues with you. Now excuse me, but I have to call it a night.

[Shintao]

That is the definition according to Merriam-Webster and most referenced dictionaries

I hate to head off to bed, but I will return tomorrow if you would like to debate this further. Until then, it has been fun discussing and goodnight.


Hmm, I don't see your definition listed there. Maybe it was the RNC dictionary? Rush Limbaugh dictionary? I do see where it says the enjoyment of various "social" rights & priviledges. Could it be that the NHC is also covered by "Liberty??"

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
Pronunciation: ˈli-bər-tē
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lib·er·ties
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French liberté, from Latin libertat-, libertas, from liber free — more at liberal
Date: 14th century

1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits

3: an action going beyond normal limits: as a: a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b: risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health> c: a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d: a distortion of fact

4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

[piratemonkey]

"There are many people who are in unfortunate circumstances that may not be their own fault. However, you have to give them tough love. In the end, tough love is love"


I love that Mr. 4Reaganomics is quoteing Mr. Greenspan, the architect of the current Recession. Quote one failure to support failed policy. Good show!

Explain how if someone got into "unfortunate circumstances" that was "not their own fault..." Why do they need "tough love?" They didn't do anything wrong, by Greenspan's own admission?

[Easy90]

I would ask that you militant socialists who've derailed this thread to kindly return to a more civil tone. Thank you.

[Osborn F. Enready]

What people fail to see about UHC.....

UHC revolves around FORCE. It uses GOVERNMENT FORCE to steal your money, and then redistribute that money to provide for YOUR needs, by their own claim.

Since when has using force been acceptable in this circumstance?
How has it worked in the past to use this method of force?

UHC is a scham, that is tailored to sound benevolent, to sound noble, but is really plain old thievery and wealth redistribution through the arm of government force.

Most of those arguing about the "need" for UHC, also complain about the lack of buying power the dollar has, but fail to connect the dots about how these things are related.

UHC is the biggest lie put on Americans since "bank holidays" and "safety nets" passed in the 30's, which are now going bankrupt.

[piratemonkey]

I would ask that you militant socialists who've derailed this thread to kindly return to a more civil tone. Thank you.


:madlaugh:

How can you violate your own request... within that request?!?!

That's just amazing! ;)

[piratemonkey]

What people fail to see about UHC.....

UHC revolves around FORCE. It uses GOVERNMENT FORCE to steal your money, and then redistribute that money to provide for YOUR needs, by their own claim.

Since when has using force been acceptable in this circumstance?
How has it worked in the past to use this method of force?

UHC is a scham, that is tailored to sound benevolent, to sound noble, but is really plain old thievery and wealth redistribution through the arm of government force.

Most of those arguing about the "need" for UHC, also complain about the lack of buying power the dollar has, but fail to connect the dots about how these things are related.

UHC is the biggest lie put on Americans since "bank holidays" and "safety nets" passed in the 30's, which are now going bankrupt.


Osborn, I usually agree with you, so this line of argument is troubling.

How is taxation to provide UHC any different than taxation to provide national security? How is one "force" and the other not?

In addition, if this is "the biggest like put on Americans," why does UHC provive better outcomes for less money in every other modern country in the world.

[4Reaganomics]

Its different because it corrupts our individual liberties that we have the right too. The fact of the matter is that Americans are not particularly capable of defending the entire country themselves with their own budget choices, one person cannot do this. Therefore, government controls the defense of the country.

Healthcare has to do with one's own health, not an entire country. The choice to go to the doctor of your choice is an individual right that should not be infringed upon, the concept of government controlling when and how you are able to get healthcare is USSR type control

it is everything but Liberty

All dictionaries maintain that liberty is freedom from restriction

In your first definition Shintao you can see that it states

"The freedom to do as one please" Universal healthcare is certainly not that. Universal healthcare as everything but LIberty, the liberty that our founding fathers gave us and spoke of is evaporating

socialist medicine is essentially the antagonist of our forefathers, and I certain will not let it prevail

[4Reaganomics]

If socialist healthcare provides better outcomes

why does medical innovation take place here? Why do Canadians come here for breakthrough surgerys when the lines are too long? WHy do middle easter kids conjoined at the head come here, why don't they go to Canada for treatment.


The biggest injustice is the fact that premiums are the same regardless of current health state.

So someone who eats themself into heart disease or diabetes pays the same amount as someone who is costing less because they have lead a healthy lifestyle. Oh look, socialists attempting to punish those who lead good productive and healthy lives in order to reward those who don't

some things never change

[brien]

Why do Canadians come here for breakthrough surgerys when the lines are too long?

Sometimes they do, but increasingly Canada is privatizing their health care system to pick up the slack that their Single Payor system finds it needs to help its citizens. I have posted this link before and I will do it again.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week. Companies like MedCan now offer “corporate medicals” that include an array of diagnostic tests and a referral to Johns Hopkins, if necessary. Insurance firms sell critical-illness insurance, giving policyholders a lump-sum payment in the event of a major diagnosis; since such policyholders could, in theory, spend the money on anything they wanted, medical or not, the system doesn’t count as health insurance and is therefore legal. Testifying to the changing nature of Canadian health care, Baker observes that securing prompt care used to mean a trip south. These days, he says, he’s able to get 80 percent of his clients care in Canada, via the private sector.

So what we see now in Canada, Europe, and in some Scandanavian countries as well, is the increasing privatization of their socialized health care system because these governments realize that the single payor UHC system can't operate successfully without the privatization of many aspects of their healthcare systems. So, we see the trend is toward increased privatization, and decreased socialization, in the UHC systems already up and running around the globe.:clapper:

[piratemonkey]

If socialist healthcare provides better outcomes

why does medical innovation take place here?
Why do Canadians come here for breakthrough surgerys when the lines are too long?

Because the US is the best place in the world to get medical care.... if you are rich.



So someone who eats themself into heart disease or diabetes pays the same amount as someone who is costing less because they have lead a healthy lifestyle.


Check this out!

A conservative advocating big brother telling us what we can and can't eat. ;)

[ViolaLee]

Isn't socialized medicine when the government pays for all medical care?

How is Obama's health care plan in that category if his plan is to get the prices low enough for people to afford and not allow the insurance companies to deny health care to customers? That's just common sense and has nothing to do with socialized medicine.

Hillary's plan might be closer to it, because her plan makes it mandatory for everyone to buy it. But it's still citizen's paying for the plan. Not the government paying for it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

PirateMonkey said:
Osborn, I usually agree with you, so this line of argument is troubling.

How is taxation to provide UHC any different than taxation to provide national security?

Healthcare is not a natural right. Self-Defense is a natural right, and the government has "taken" certain procedures to "assist" citizens in their rights by creating police and National Armies, as well as the State has its Armies. These are all "created" and/or "legitimized" based on the extension of individual rights to self-defense, but there are layers of arguments for and against each to some degree, depending on what position taken, individual, state or federal.

Healthcare is not a natural right, and you can't have a natural right that is based on the dependence of someone elses labor, much less a natural right to a series of other peoples labor, medical technology, medical equipment suppliers, medicine manufacturers, education for those who provide the service, etc, etc, etc,.

A person has a choice to decide what level of healthcare they need, and have the ability to provide for that need except in extreme circumstance. A person has a right to choose to live a healthy life, as well as a right to choose to live an unhealthy life, but both choices are on the individuals own dime, the government ONLY secures the right to access healthcare, not provide the means for it.

PirateMonkey said:
How is one "force" and the other not?

The use of force is implied through taxation. National Defense is the example you used, regarding a comparison. The need for taxation for National Defense in the modern world is obvious, even if viewed from a reasonable non-interventionist defensive force perspective. A strong national defense is required for border security, airspace control, and control over the national waters and protectorates. The need to tax for this is both obvious, and I would say personally, legitimate if kept in perspective of tangible, viable threats regarding budget expenditure limits. This is a national issue that is a requirement to ensure the safety and protection of all U.S. citizens to the most reasonable extent possible, and with full respect and observance of the individuals rights whom they are elected to serve. This service is a requirement of reputable goverment, and in my opinion a necessary tax that is incumbent on all who have a vested stake (life and property) in the stability of (a) government. in addition, all of these services are supplements on the basic natural right to competent self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms.

Healthcare on the other hand, would be a form of insurance, that infringes directly on both parties (cared for & caregivers) rights.

The (cared for) would be forced to deal directly through government influenced programs, and may incur penalties (economic and otherwise) for non-participation.
Government would have a direct intrest on the health of Individual Citizen lives, and would influence behavior through legislative actions over time.

The (caregivers) would be forced to deal through a government monopolized and (mis)regulated system for wages and benefits, hours and incentives. The market would be regulated in a way that would discourage individual achievement, thereby affecting medical technology and industry overall. The only place for true entrepeneurs would be to work abroad.

PirateMonkey said:
In addition, if this is "the biggest like put on Americans," why does UHC provive better outcomes for less money in every other modern country in the world.

In many cases, no offense intended to any other countries, but most were working "up" to begin with from a significantly lower standard before hand.

It provides better outcomes in some cases, usually for the most destitute. It also affects the quality of healthcare to all people, in some ways good, in some ways bad. It provides less choice for the individual in many cases, again, except for the destitute.

Mainly though it is the fact that this is not the role of the government of the United States, it infringes directly on individual rights on multiple levels, and it creates a government monopoly out of healthcare, which as we have seen in almost all other examples, is not good. In our case, its not within the Constitutional auspice of the government of the United States to provide healthcare to its citizens.

So, some say "why not propose an amendment"? Well, if you did, it would directly affect other amendments rendering them null and void, and I doubt you could do it today in a manner that the bulk of the citizens would sanction, regarding procedural process, due to the bi-partisan monopoly on politics in the United States, and the general intrest of Americans to retain Individual Rights.

[Elrathin]

Healthcare is not a natural right. Self-Defense is a natural right, and the government has "taken" certain procedures to "assist" citizens in their rights by creating police and National Armies, as well as the State has its Armies.


I differ in thought about Healthcare not being a natural right.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Healthcare IS a natural right.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
I differ in thought about Healthcare not being a natural right.

Fair enough. Explain the derivation of this right from the right to life please if you expect me to respect that "subjective comment" as reasonable.

Elrathin said:
Healthcare IS a natural right.

Again, saying it does not make it so. Its a logical fallacy, in my opinion, but I am confident enough in my ability to defend my point of view with logic and reason to challenge you to DEFEND your allegations using the same method, logic and reason.

Please show me the derivation of "a right to healthcare" from a "right to life", using logic and reason. When you do, I will respect your allegation and explanation of it, with a reasonable, logical reply. :love:

[Elrathin]

Health care is included with this:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now if you want to show me how it doesn't get included with it, feel free. But when you do I suspect you will just be using YOUR interpretation as well. I'm confident with mine.

Congress is given the power by the constitution, right or wrong, to determine what the general welfare of the U.S. should be. That includes Healthcare.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
Now if you want to show me how it doesn't get included with it, feel free. But when you do I suspect you will just be using YOUR interpretation as well. I'm confident with mine.

What is YOUR interpretation grounded in? Mine is grounded in the writings of the forefathers themselves, the debates that took place on the issues that formed the Constitutiton and Bill of Rights... in other words, by "interpretation" is grounded in the reality of the context of the situation which provided the Constitution and BOR.

Elrathin said:
Congress is given the power by the constitution, right or wrong, to determine what the general welfare of the U.S. should be. That includes Healthcare.

It does not include healthcare, and no law can stand in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the United States, nor are citizens bound to accept and obey laws that directly conflict with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You quoted Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution as your support for your argument, which is obviously fallacious.

Can you explain the difference between "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"?

Then explain how you deal with the obvious lack of "enforcement" of the clause "shall be uniform throughout the United States;"?

Can you show me where you would arrive at the idea that Article 1, Section 8 would cover this "definition" of welfare or the right to interpret the term as to provide for the MEANS to cover individual healthcare?

Please excuse me if I seem raw, callous or "uncivil", but you have no clue what you are talking about regarding Article 1, Section 8 covering "a means to healthcare" through taxation, and anybody with Constitutional education would concur with my assesment.


This is about a factual difference, not a SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

[Elrathin]

What is YOUR interpretation grounded in? Mine is grounded in the writings of the forefathers themselves, the debates that took place on the issues that formed the Constitutiton and Bill of Rights... in other words, by "interpretation" is grounded in the reality of the context of the situation which provided the Constitution and BOR.

Alright show us exactly what quotes support your claim that Healthcare cannot be included by showing us how the founding fathers said otherwise.


It does not include healthcare, and no law can stand in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the United States, nor are citizens bound to accept and obey laws that directly conflict with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Saying it does not include Healthcare, does not make it so if Congress enacts it which is their right.


Then explain how you deal with the obvious lack of "enforcement" of the clause "shall be uniform throughout the United States;"?

UHC WOULD be uniform throughout the U.S.


Please excuse me if I seem raw, callous or "uncivil", but you have no clue what you are talking about regarding Article 1, Section 8 covering "a means to healthcare" through taxation, and anybody with Constitutional education would concur with my assesment.

Actually I have a clue, and if you continue along these lines of personal insults they will be reported.


This is about a factual difference, not a SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.


Sorry but all you have provided is SUBJECTIVENESS in your interpretation that Health Care is not included in the general welfare if congress enacts it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
Alright show us exactly what quotes support your claim that Healthcare cannot be included by showing us how the founding fathers said otherwise.

Allright.

Article 1, Section. 9.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. ( this is regarding the form of taxation recognized, apportionment )

Now, read article 1, section 8, and tell me where the term general welfare is given further definition? Don't bother, I will provide the answer. The term general welfare is further clarified by the list of "valid" reasons for taxation, fines, imposts and excises listed within Article 1, Section 8. Notice, none of these "clarifications" directly inhibit or affect the exercise of individual rights. Now notice that the inclusion of UHC into this "perception of clarification" would directly violate not only individual rights, but also the entire concept of self-ownership, self-responsibility, and the founding principle of government and law in this nation.

Article 4, Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. (regarding the right to a republican form of government)

Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. (regarding the right of people to demand government live up to its republican guarantee, regarding ROLE of government as limited by and with respect to the Constitution and Bill of Rights)

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here are some comments that touch the "concept" of what you speak.

"...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..." Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address.

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together." Thomas Paine Rights of Man, Part II, Chapter 1. Whole Book.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer!" Thomas Paine, Common Sense; 1776. Whole Book.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Cooper, Nov. 29, 1802.

"They [Congress] seemed, some little while ago, to be at a loss for objects whereon to throw away the supposed fathomless funds of the treasury." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.


Elrathin said:
Saying it does not include Healthcare, does not make it so if Congress enacts it which is their right.

No, in fact it is NOT their right. Congress does have the authority to pass laws which contradict the Constitution directly, but the PEOPLE are not obliged by ANY authority to respect nor adhere to laws that directly conflict with the Law of the Land.

However, the Congress DOES NOT have the authority to pass laws which directly infringe upon, or limit individual rights.

No majority, has the right to remove the rights through legislation, from any minority.

"A written constitution, at least in a free country, is a supreme and paramount law, which all must obey, and to which all statutes, all institutions, and all governmental activities must bend, and which cannot be abrogated except by the people who created it." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

"...the term "constitutional government" is applied only to those whose fundamental rules or maxims not only locate the sovereign power in individuals or bodies designated or chosen in some prescribed manner, but also define the limits of its exercise, so as to protect individual rights, and shield them against the assumption of arbitrary power." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

Elrathin said:
UHC WOULD be uniform throughout the U.S.

Not my point at all.....

I was attempting to SHOW THE READERS the depth of your "intelligence" in this debate, by asking you to explain the difference between direct and indirect taxation as well as getting you to acknowledge the types of taxation that exist today, the CONSTITUTIONAL FORMS of RECOGNIZED and VALID taxation which you completely failed to provide, or even pick up on.

Elrathin said:
Actually I have a clue, and if you continue along these lines of personal insults they will be reported.

That was no insult, it was an observation, but it was a personal observation for which I fully intend to backup with the ensuing debate.

To call someone "ignorant" is not the same as calling someone "stupid".

Ignorant is "not fully understanding, or without full information".
Stupid is CHOOSING to be ignorant, and willfully rejecting facts, information or education on a particular topic.

I said you were ignorant on this issue, which was an observation of your level of education on this issue, not an INSULT.

Elrathin said:
Sorry but all you have provided is SUBJECTIVENESS in your interpretation that Health Care is not included in the general welfare if congress enacts it.

I have all the time, facts and historical context on my side, so debate the point at your leisure and I will gladly reply as time permits.


"A constitution differs from a statute or act of a legislature in three important particulars:
(1) It is enacted by the whole people who are to be governed by it, instead of being enacted by their representatives sitting in a congress or legislature.
(2) A constitution can be abrogated, repealed, or modified only by the power which created it, namely, the people; whereas a statute may be repealed or changed by the legislature.
(3) The provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government, or the establishment and guaranty of liberties, instead of being designed merely to regulate the conduct of individuals among themselves. But the tendency towards amplification, in modern constitutions, derogates from the precision of this last distinction." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

"…in political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. Society...practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,...penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them…" - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).





Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT rests on the concept of the "role of government" is to provide for the "health and welfare" of its citizens through direct wealth redistribution, by the FEDERAL government among its other duties.

I still and will continue to demand you show me where such an ERRONEUOUS contention could be extruded from the orignal document, the writings on the intent and meaning of the document, or the LIMITS IMPOSED by the BOR.

I also will not tolerate being accused of using personal insults, when none were given. :unreal:

[4Reaganomics]

Best post on DF in a long time, thanks for taking the time to clarify our founding fathers' position on this Osborn

[4Reaganomics]

"...a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..." Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address.

This gives me chills when I read it. To think, we might of had an opportunity at one point to live in this type of country that Jefferson speaks of. My God, how great it would have been.

[Osborn F. Enready]

No problem, and no thanks necessary. I have valid rational self intrest in logical, reasonable debate being recognized for its face value.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Here is a link some of you may find valuable, if you can view Obama and Hillaries plans for UHC OBJECTIVELY.

(note, I do not necessarily endorse every written word in this link, but it surely addresses many issues "average Americans" are failing to address.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd344.htm

[4Reaganomics]

I'm sending it to the top because I believe that much of it is still relevant and deserves discussion.

Great link, I think it is imperative for people to understand that this concept is essentially anti-liberty