I would rather live in a society of selfish dicks, as YOU call them, then theiving thugs.
When I make such a society I will make sure to send you an invitation then;)
LOL, but what you are advocating is the opposite -- a society of thugs.
No I am more a "Hope for the best and prepare for the worst" type of person.
So I prefer the selfish dicks for company but I do know that the thugs have the advantage right now and their strength is growing.
And since I do believe that strength (personal or otherwise) defines who is right, I urge people around me that are either smarter or more knowledgeable than me to actually start suggesting alternatives. That's for example why I like devils suggestions for example, cause it's an alternative over the existing mediocre rules.
Basically I am advocating that people should stop being selfish and start looking out for themselves:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
And YOU still didn't answer my question..... Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid? You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing. End of story. You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school? Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?" Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow. Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Obviously you have not bothered to read this thread. I for one am trying to prevent the pile of paperwork and the government from telling you whether or not your son can be treated. I am against a healthcare plan that leaves anyone out period. We do not have the right to pick and choose who gets to live and who dies.
I am for a plan that makes sure EVERYONE gets treatment , no one is left out, that they get the best care possible, and that does not bankrupt this nation. Obamas plan does not do that and that is why I oppose it.
I am the one trying to make sure people vote for the right plan and not just a plan to give government control . I want a plan that makes sure everyone gets the best care possible including you and your son. I am not against you. I am not " out of touch". I have dealt with this first hand on the front lines and see this as completely preventable.
Please read my posts before assuming that my position is in opposition to what is best for you and your family. I was addressing POP for blindly supporting a plan that will result in more deaths, less coverage and will bankrupt this country even though there are more effective, better treatment plans being offered up at this time. I was addressing pop for his insulting of the posters that do not agree with him. Why choose the plan that doesn't work over the plan that does?
You silly Americans always misunderstand universal healthcare and socialism in general. You view both as some sort of charity when you should be viewing it as insurance. Do any of you pay insurance to support your fellow man? Has anybody? You pay it to cover your own ass. Under universal healthcare, as with proper socialist programs, everyone benefits equally. As far as the OPs question about goods/services goes... healthcare is not something you can afford on your own, if it was you wouldn't need insurance - healthcare is something where you need to rely on the support of your fellow man and they need to rely on you. That's a fact. The arguement is not about healthcare - it's about who can provide a better service. Private insurance companies that hire detectives to find holes in your claims or another system where all Americans are protected and nobody is rejected because they forgot to tell their insurance company about that mild illness they had 30 years ago. Private insurance companies that stand between you and the proper care that you need, or another system where you get the best treatment you can get because there is no pencil pushing dictator deciding that treatment is too expensive so the insurance company will not cover it.
Interesting...
So you would say that healthcare belongs among things like local law enforcment, where every citizen pitches in instead of every person having to hire a personal bodyguard?
Is it true that in England at age 59 you no longer are given any healthcare in the way of heart repair and stints for bypass? Is it true it's deemed "too expensive" to bother with?
If it's true even at age 70, then it's healthcare that sucks ass and should never be considered part of our nation's history.
wonder what age in germany ppl are considered too old to get health care of a critical nature? do you know? How many potatoes are you worth? (reference to a little graph they use for the ignorant)
Too many people to reply to, so I won't quote ANYONE this time.
Personally...I don't MIND paying taxes to help other people. Somehow, Fisher (and others), you've forgotten that I have been paying taxes MYSELF for 30 years. I have absolutely NO problem asking for help from the government now if I need it. I have paid into the system that helped my son MYSELF. I'm not "stealing" your freaking money, thank you very much. And I, personally, am not such an ASS that I would be bitching about helping other people with my tax dollar....never have....never will.
It does not offend me for someone, like my son, that is a hard working kid, who needs some help to be able to survive...to be able to get that help. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it had been any of YOUR children rather than mine. The point is...it's a godsend that that help was THERE for us. And I'm pretty sure that you'd feel the same way. And I would certainly not be complaining that my taxes were helping you.
The selfishness of people is really amazing to me. Sure it would be lovely if people would just kindly help each other in neighborhoods and communities and paying taxes for these sorts of things were unnecessary, but you are PROVING why that doesn't work.
Part of being an U.S. citizen is that we have a tax system. For now...that is how it is. If you don't like that....move to a country that doesn't "force you" (god forbid) to help others with YOUR hard earned dollar. Myself....I don't mind that some of what I work for might just help someone I don't know. Human beings are human beings whether they're in my own personal family or not.
Too many people to reply to, so I won't quote ANYONE this time. Personally...I don't MIND paying taxes to help other people. Somehow, Fisher (and others), you've forgotten that I have been paying taxes MYSELF for 30 years. I have absolutely NO problem asking for help from the government now if I need it. I have paid into the system that helped my son MYSELF. I'm not "stealing" your freaking money, thank you very much. And I, personally, am not such an ASS that I would be bitching about helping other people with my tax dollar....never have....never will. It does not offend me for someone, like my son, that is a hard working kid, who needs some help to be able to survive...to be able to get that help. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it had been any of YOUR children rather than mine. The point is...it's a godsend that that help was THERE for us. And I'm pretty sure that you'd feel the same way. And I would certainly not be complaining that my taxes were helping you. The selfishness of people is really amazing to me. Sure it would be lovely if people would just kindly help each other in neighborhoods and communities and paying taxes for these sorts of things were unnecessary, but you are PROVING why that doesn't work. Part of being an U.S. citizen is that we have a tax system. For now...that is how it is. If you don't like that....move to a country that doesn't "force you" (god forbid) to help others with YOUR hard earned dollar. Myself....I don't mind that some of what I work for might just help someone I don't know. Human beings are human beings whether they're in my own personal family or not.
I haven't forgotten anything. I just don't think health care is a proper function of government.
Well this thread pretty much made me hate capitalism.
It's because it's flawed. Pure any system is flawed.
A mixed system with a capitalist base is the best way to go.
What if that mixed system bankrupts the capitalist base, as we see in health care today? As we see in country after country which "Mixes" the systems?
Why is it that the areas of our economy that have the most "mixing," like health care and education, have the greatest cost problems? In that we can track it, the more socialist a system is, it seems the more the costs go up beyond normal market forces in more capitalist sectors of the economy. One can track this in almost every product, since we have so many different degrees of mixing from propuct to product.
Pretty much, the more mixing and the less capitalistic, the bigger the cost problems. The worst ones are the ones where the government is the biggest player in the industry, like defense, health care, and education.
Capitalism is flawed, like liberal democracy, because PEOPLE are flawed. This "mixing" as you put it, only wosens the situation. AT least that is what history shows.
Well this thread pretty much made me hate capitalism.
It's because it's flawed. Pure any system is flawed.
A mixed system with a capitalist base is the best way to go.
What if that mixed system bankrupts the capitalist base, as we see in health care today? As we see in country after country which "Mixes" the systems?
Why is it that the areas of our economy that have the most "mixing," like health care and education, have the greatest cost problems? In that we can track it, the more socialist a system is, it seems the more the costs go up beyond normal market forces in more capitalist sectors of the economy. One can track this in almost every product, since we have so many different degrees of mixing from propuct to product.
Pretty much, the more mixing and the less capitalistic, the bigger the cost problems. The worst ones are the ones where the government is the biggest player in the industry, like defense, health care, and education.
Capitalism is flawed, like liberal democracy, because PEOPLE are flawed. This "mixing" as you put it, only wosens the situation. AT least that is what history shows.
Way to throw that in there. You almost went a whole post without blaming liberals. Was a close one.
The more capitalist we get, the more power we give to the private sector. A sector that the general public has no say in. Allowing for mistreatment and unfair policies. When the government controls something, the people can at least do something about it if they don't like it. They can vote people out of office.
If the private sector ran the schools without any government, we'd have 40 different accreditations, and companies that receive money from the accreditors to only accept graduates with that particular accreditation. It'd be a nightmare.
There is no system that can fix everything, maybe one aspect but it will fail in another. And people are fickle, they will suport whatever they think can give them what they want at the time, and it will change.
Debates like these are charged with fear, on both sides. People trying to look for that pot of gold that will extend mortality, they can be led to believe anything. Rights are thrown around a lot, as if that meant anything, the right of people to healthcare the right of property owners, rights don't exist, you have what you do because others allow you to and what you can keep for yourself.
Personally I want to avoid healthcare entirely, while I am young barring an accident I doubt I will need a doctor and I plan not to live long enough to get to a point where I need to, one way or another. Because no matter how it is run, you become dependant on medicine, your life dictated by a machine or pills, but what kind of life is that.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Trying to say that history is improving towards ever-increasing freedom is something that Marx's teacher, Hegel, came up with...and Hegel is the same man who said that the history of freedom ends in the state: it is the state that makes man free. Marx also predicted that market capitalism can't sustain itself, which is also something we've seen as of late.
Some of us here seem to equate universal healthcare as compelling the rich through violence or the threat of violence into doing something that is contrary to reason. I think that's a rather convoluted way of looking at it, but let's run with it for the sake of argument.
The reason that the "have nots" have to compel the "haves" through force is because the "haves" won't respond to anything else.
Like with anyone else--looking at things from a purely "rational choice" perspective--the way you get to the rich is to appeal to their self-interest. And since the overriding self-interest of the rich is to have peace and freedom so they may enjoy their wealth, holding this as a barganing chip is the most effective means of compelling them to do something.
What other alternatives are there, really?
I'm sure the wealthy want fame, and to be truthful, they probably would and could become famous if they all dip into their own pockets voluntarily to solve healthcare. The problem is that they aren't doing it, and if they are doing it, they aren't doing enough, because the problem is getting worse.
I'm sure if we promise them more wealth, they'll do something. But this only goes so far. They already have wealth, so making them wealthier isn't going to have as much of an affect. Not only that, but giving those who have healthcare more wealth is counterproductive to the end of making healthcare more available.
But the thing the rich want more than anything else is to be left alone to enjoy their wealth. Their estates are so bloated that they can't protect themselves, have no desire to protect themselves, and so they need other people to make sure they are safe. And therefore, taking this protection away or otherwise jeopardizing this safety is the surest way to get the rich to do something for others. Because how else is anyone going to appeal to the wants of someone who wants for nothing?
If my description sounds draconian and cold, it's no colder than anything that comes out of Ayn Rand's books. Unlike Rand though, I'm willing to call a spade a spade. Rand glorifies man as a pig in the trough, which is just as inhuman as glorifying the wolf who hunts the fattest sheep.
But it isn't me who made the sheep fat, nor is it me who is saying that the many poor have the right to use the means they have available to them (government included) to go after the rich few. It's something that is more fundamental than rights. It's about reality--and if Aristotle is correct--it's something that always has been the case, is now, and always will be the case.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
No, of course your son shouldn't have to die. No one should. I don't think that is necessarily the point here, though.
Certainly, Medicaid (the government) was helpful and useful to you (and to many others) in your situation and for that, I personally am thankful and wish you and your son only the best and hope that he has a long and happy life.
However, as someone who has had to rely on government-sponsored healthcare (military, VA, etc), I am opposed to government-run healthcare for one reason: in my experience, it is the lowest possible quality in the country.
When I was in the Army, there was a report released stating that military doctors (that is, doctors who operate solely in military medical facilities) were not required at that time to have a license to practice medicine. In point of fact, about a dozen doctors stationed at the same military medical facility as I was stationed in had been stripped of their licenses to practice medicine, yet they were employed by the federal government in government owned and operated facilities!
Currently, congress is all over the Veterans Administration healthcare system due to the fact (not supposition, fact) that veterans are receiving and have been receiving substandard medical care. People are dying every day because of substandard medical care in facilities owned and operated by the federal government. I ask you: did my son deserve to die five years ago because of the erroneous supposition that the federal government is the best possible healthcare provider? Did I deserve to nearly be killed by a nurse in a government run facility injecting me with a drug I was highly allergic to when both my records and the little hospital armband I was wearing made it abundantly clear (as did I when the nurse injected me and told me that she was "a nurse" and knew what she "was doing")? Did my friend's wife deserve to die of cancer that was allowed to spread because the doctors in the government-run medical facility just assumed that she was over 65, so she must be depressed and the depression was what was causing the agonizing pain that she was in? Did my father deserve to die, also of cancer, because the government-sponsored healthcare he was receiving determined that he simply had a muscle strain that was taking an exceptionally long time to heal when, in fact, he had spinal cancer? DId I deserve to live in constant pain for more than two years because the doctors at the government-run healthcare facility swore up and down that there was nothing wrong with my spine, while the civilian doctors immediately found via x-rays that I had nearly been internally decapitated (those civilian doctor bills ran up to about $20,000, I might add)? Do other people's children, fathers, and mothers deserve to die because the federal government has allowed physicians who have been stripped of their licenses to practice medicine to do so in government-run facilities and also allows those who are not qualified or who have files of patient complaints the length of my arm encompassing about 15 years of practice in a given facility to practice in government run facilities?
Before I will sign on or agree to any form of government-run healthcare, I am sorry to those of you who think it is a wonderful idea (ask Canadians about their healthcare. I have several Canadian friends - one of whom is an RN in Canada - who say the nationalized healthcare system there is so terrible that they come to the US for their healthcare), but the government must first improve its medical practices and bring itself in line with the accepted and acceptable standards of the medical community as a whole.
To the individual(s) who suggested that those of us who are opposed to the idea of nationalized heathcare have never done anything of note or earned anything in our lives, I would like to point out that I worked two jobs all through high school. I entered the military three years after graduating high school, and during those three years, I worked no less than two jobs at a time in order to pay my own way. I was accepted to a prestigious university but because my parents couldn't afford it, I paid my own way through college - partly using the GI Bill benefits of my time in the Army, and mostly using my own wages earned by working in the field that I was going to school to learn. Upon graduation from college, I attended further education, which I paid for completely out of pocket. During my marriage, I owned a house, two cars, and numerous other items, all of which I worked hard to earn the money to pay for. Now divorced, I pay my own way through life as I always have. My mother and father never gave me anything (unless you count the one plane ticket my father paid for so that I could attend my grandfather's funeral - and I paid him back for that); quite the opposite. I paid my parents' bills for about three years before my father died and continued to pay all of my mother's bills (plus my own) and about half of my sister's bills for two to three years after my father died. I worked for quite some time in the television industry and was well-regarded in my field and I am a 100% disabled veteran who became disabled defending your right to make errorneous, flawed, and arrogant assumptions about me and people like me. Such broad generalizations are dangerous - never assume the person who disagrees with you is too young, too selfish, or too uneducated to understand what they are saying. Some of us speak from long experience with the matter at hand and to imply otherwise is incredibly disrespectful. Still, though I believe your opinion causes you to appear to be an arrogant imbecile, I will defend to the death your right to express that opinion.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I doubt that an healtcare like the one we have in Canada would ever work in the state for a lot of reason. Too many folks down there who freak out with less than 10% in tax.
I doubt that an healtcare like the one we have in Canada would ever work in the state for a lot of reason. Too many folks down there who freak out with less than 10% in tax.
The big thing that most people miss on this issue is the proportion of military expediture in the U.S. budget. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. to have a single-payer healthcare system as things stand now.
Personally I agree with those comparing healthcare to law enforcement- looking at medicine as a for-profit enterprise is essentially evil.
I've resisted posting in this thread because I do not see a good solution here. The current system is pathetically inadequate and getting worse. If you are confused about this please visit any big-city ED pretty much any day of the week (although saturday evening would be best).
The "Ayn Rand" types fail to realize that no matter what, there will always be people that are not smart or strong enough to take care of themselves. Condemning them to be pruned from the human race in some brutal form of natural selection (if they can't afford their own health care, screw em!) is not something I can imagine sane, empathetic, and compassionate people allowing to happen.
As far as the massive COSTS of healthcare, I can tell you that if we can move the focus from REACTIVE medicine to PREVENTATIVE medicine, the costs will drop across the board. Many of the causes of multiple comorbid conditions (obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, environmental hazard exposure, etc) would be a LOT cheaper to treat through education and hazard mitigation than they are through management of illness.
On the other hand our HIGHER standard of living has now created a situation where the vast majority of the population lives long enough to require EXTREMELY expensive longterm care (frequently with difficult to treat chronic illnesses like alzheimers).
So what do I think? At the end of the day, absolutely basic healthcare should be provided for all people. As it stands now though, the only thing keeping the military balance of power on the planet is the massive military strength and technical superiority of the United States. Personally I'd like to see domestic policy changes (like drug legalization, management, and taxation) to help fund sane healthcare policy. But like I said, in spite of the fact that I deal with this every day I don't see any simple solutions.
Edit- typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I doubt that an healtcare like the one we have in Canada would ever work in the state for a lot of reason. Too many folks down there who freak out with less than 10% in tax.
The big thing that most people miss on this issue is the proportion of military expediture in the U.S. budget. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. to have a single-payer healthcare system as things stand now.
Personally I agree with those comparing healthcare to law enforcement- looking at medicine as a for-profit enterprise is essentially evil.
I've resisted posting in this thread because I do not see a good solution here. The current system is pathetically inadequate and getting worse. If you are confused about this please visit any big-city ED pretty much any day of the week (although saturday evening would be best).
The "Ayn Rand" types fail to realize that no matter what, there will always be people that are not smart or strong enough to take care of themselves. Condemning them to be pruned from the human race in some brutal form of natural selection (if they can't afford their own health care, screw em!) is not something I can imagine sane, empathetic, and compassionate people allowing to happen.
As far as the massive COSTS of healthcare, I can tell you that if we can move the focus from REACTIVE medicine to PREVENTATIVE medicine, the costs will drop across the board. Many of the causes of multiple comorbid conditions (obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, environmental hazard exposure, etc) would be a LOT cheaper to treat through education and hazard mitigation than they are through management of illness.
On the other hand our HIGHER standard of living has now created a situation where the vast majority of the population lives long enough to require EXTREMELY expensive longterm care (frequently with difficult to treat chronic illnesses like alzheimers).
So what do I think? At the end of the day, absolutely basic healthcare should be provided for all people. As it stands now though, the only thing keeping the military balance of power on the planet is the massive military strength and technical superiority of the United States. Personally I'd like to see domestic policy changes (like drug legalization, management, and taxation) to help fund sane healthcare policy. But like I said, in spite of the fact that I deal with this every day I don't see any simple solutions.
Edit- typo
If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Originally posted by Fishermage Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time. Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation of how we could offer something like emergency medical services without organization on a govenment level.
Public health affects everyone.. I'm perfectly OK with telling people they are obligated to help support public health and safety if they want to live in a community.
Seriously, tell us all how something like this would work in your universe? Or would you just let people die on the street? Is that the downside of "freedom"?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
Originally posted by Fishermage Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time. Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation of how we could offer something like emergency medical services without organization on a govenment level.
Public health affects everyone.. I'm perfectly OK with telling people they are obligated to help support public health and safety if they want to live in a community.
Seriously, tell us all how something like this would work in your universe? Or would you just let people die on the street? Is that the downside of "freedom"?
Please justify forcing people to medically care for one another. I think that is the bridge no one here has crossed.
Medicine, hospitals medical technology, all these things HAPPENED before government got involved, In fact, most of them happened in a country with almost no government intervention. Insurance rose the same way.
Then some very nice people got the idea to use STATE funds to help others. Then some very nice people decided to federalize that. This led to, as everything government does, into spiraling costs do to way governments spend money -- without market discipline. The same thing has happened in education, the military, and everything government has gotten involved in. You have a (near) infinite supply of money now governed by politics, not the market and charity, to do something taht people have infinite wants for. That spells doom economically, every time.
It certainly sped up certain things happening -- but at the cost of spiraling prices and growing shortages (oy growing shortages).
This led to more and more government to cover the rising costs caused by government until the system is nearly bust now -- throughout the world, Worldwide we have allowed government intervention into our economy to bankrupt us all.
The world is nearing total bankrupcy from this orgy of government.
I will continue to argue against it, as people like me have been doing for a very long time.
How will I solve the world's problems? I can't. No one can. I can only help out where and when we can. I will never advocate doing so by forcing others however. Government doesn't solve the problem eiuther -- it kicks the can down the road and makes matters worse for the future, something taht we are witnessing the final results of now -- a worldwide recession/depression caused by governments spending more than they had, pumping up the money to fake being able to afford it -- leading to the best we are in now.
And guys like me are forced to say, "See? this is what we've been talking about all along." And then the people blame GREED when it was mixing love and force that did it.
Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
Originally posted by Fishermage If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
No....I trust NEITHER. Trusting love is foolish because you cannot determine what is in the heart of OTHER people. You can't even truly know your OWN heart (the Bible says that the heart is deceitful). Trusting "love" is trusting an ethereal emotion, choice, or idea that often doesn't even act in the best interests of those that it purports to "love." Define love. Try to define it. You cannot. Because it means something different to everyone who utters the word. Most of mankind "loves" no one but themselves. And your Christian definition of love doesn't even compel most Christians to act in loving ways, so how do you suppose that's going to work across a much broader spectrum? It's not. (No offense to Christians, or to people of other faiths either.)
"Brute force," as you call it, is what attempts to keep society from eating itself WHOLE. You're calling the law, or laws of the land, "brute force." The Bible, by the way, says to obey the laws of the land. You might want to look that one up. The law is what ATTEMPTS to keep criminals off the street and tries to guide millions of people in the right direction (because after all, dear sir, EVERYONE is not Christian, nor does EVERYONE even have a basic code of ethics and morals by which they live. There are people that actually have no definitive conscience to convict them of "right" and "wrong" at ALL).
This way of the "law" can also not be trusted, because it lends to a hunger for power in politics, etc.
I know YOU think "love" can do this. Your BRAND of love, i.e. "Christian" love, has had many centuries to "love this world into a better state." It has failed. Sure....ideally, "love is the answer." The problem is.....the kind of "love" that you're talking about, doesn't exist in the general populace. It doesn't even exist in a LOT of the "Church." I think you have a very overly optimistic idea of the "good of humanity." That is noble for you to think that way, but it is also unrealistic.
Comments
When I make such a society I will make sure to send you an invitation then;)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
When I make such a society I will make sure to send you an invitation then;)
LOL, but what you are advocating is the opposite -- a society of thugs.
fishermage.blogspot.com
When I make such a society I will make sure to send you an invitation then;)
LOL, but what you are advocating is the opposite -- a society of thugs.
No I am more a "Hope for the best and prepare for the worst" type of person.
So I prefer the selfish dicks for company but I do know that the thugs have the advantage right now and their strength is growing.
And since I do believe that strength (personal or otherwise) defines who is right, I urge people around me that are either smarter or more knowledgeable than me to actually start suggesting alternatives. That's for example why I like devils suggestions for example, cause it's an alternative over the existing mediocre rules.
Basically I am advocating that people should stop being selfish and start looking out for themselves:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Obviously you have not bothered to read this thread. I for one am trying to prevent the pile of paperwork and the government from telling you whether or not your son can be treated. I am against a healthcare plan that leaves anyone out period. We do not have the right to pick and choose who gets to live and who dies.
I am for a plan that makes sure EVERYONE gets treatment , no one is left out, that they get the best care possible, and that does not bankrupt this nation. Obamas plan does not do that and that is why I oppose it.
I am the one trying to make sure people vote for the right plan and not just a plan to give government control . I want a plan that makes sure everyone gets the best care possible including you and your son. I am not against you. I am not " out of touch". I have dealt with this first hand on the front lines and see this as completely preventable.
Please read my posts before assuming that my position is in opposition to what is best for you and your family. I was addressing POP for blindly supporting a plan that will result in more deaths, less coverage and will bankrupt this country even though there are more effective, better treatment plans being offered up at this time. I was addressing pop for his insulting of the posters that do not agree with him. Why choose the plan that doesn't work over the plan that does?
Interesting...
So you would say that healthcare belongs among things like local law enforcment, where every citizen pitches in instead of every person having to hire a personal bodyguard?
That's really the best argument in this thread.
-------------------------
Is it true that in England at age 59 you no longer are given any healthcare in the way of heart repair and stints for bypass? Is it true it's deemed "too expensive" to bother with?
If it's true even at age 70, then it's healthcare that sucks ass and should never be considered part of our nation's history.
wonder what age in germany ppl are considered too old to get health care of a critical nature? do you know? How many potatoes are you worth? (reference to a little graph they use for the ignorant)
Too many people to reply to, so I won't quote ANYONE this time.
Personally...I don't MIND paying taxes to help other people. Somehow, Fisher (and others), you've forgotten that I have been paying taxes MYSELF for 30 years. I have absolutely NO problem asking for help from the government now if I need it. I have paid into the system that helped my son MYSELF. I'm not "stealing" your freaking money, thank you very much. And I, personally, am not such an ASS that I would be bitching about helping other people with my tax dollar....never have....never will.
It does not offend me for someone, like my son, that is a hard working kid, who needs some help to be able to survive...to be able to get that help. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it had been any of YOUR children rather than mine. The point is...it's a godsend that that help was THERE for us. And I'm pretty sure that you'd feel the same way. And I would certainly not be complaining that my taxes were helping you.
The selfishness of people is really amazing to me. Sure it would be lovely if people would just kindly help each other in neighborhoods and communities and paying taxes for these sorts of things were unnecessary, but you are PROVING why that doesn't work.
Part of being an U.S. citizen is that we have a tax system. For now...that is how it is. If you don't like that....move to a country that doesn't "force you" (god forbid) to help others with YOUR hard earned dollar. Myself....I don't mind that some of what I work for might just help someone I don't know. Human beings are human beings whether they're in my own personal family or not.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Well this thread pretty much made me hate capitalism.
I haven't forgotten anything. I just don't think health care is a proper function of government.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It's because it's flawed. Pure any system is flawed.
A mixed system with a capitalist base is the best way to go.
The Official God FAQ
It's because it's flawed. Pure any system is flawed.
A mixed system with a capitalist base is the best way to go.
What if that mixed system bankrupts the capitalist base, as we see in health care today? As we see in country after country which "Mixes" the systems?
Why is it that the areas of our economy that have the most "mixing," like health care and education, have the greatest cost problems? In that we can track it, the more socialist a system is, it seems the more the costs go up beyond normal market forces in more capitalist sectors of the economy. One can track this in almost every product, since we have so many different degrees of mixing from propuct to product.
Pretty much, the more mixing and the less capitalistic, the bigger the cost problems. The worst ones are the ones where the government is the biggest player in the industry, like defense, health care, and education.
Capitalism is flawed, like liberal democracy, because PEOPLE are flawed. This "mixing" as you put it, only wosens the situation. AT least that is what history shows.
fishermage.blogspot.com
It's because it's flawed. Pure any system is flawed.
A mixed system with a capitalist base is the best way to go.
What if that mixed system bankrupts the capitalist base, as we see in health care today? As we see in country after country which "Mixes" the systems?
Why is it that the areas of our economy that have the most "mixing," like health care and education, have the greatest cost problems? In that we can track it, the more socialist a system is, it seems the more the costs go up beyond normal market forces in more capitalist sectors of the economy. One can track this in almost every product, since we have so many different degrees of mixing from propuct to product.
Pretty much, the more mixing and the less capitalistic, the bigger the cost problems. The worst ones are the ones where the government is the biggest player in the industry, like defense, health care, and education.
Capitalism is flawed, like liberal democracy, because PEOPLE are flawed. This "mixing" as you put it, only wosens the situation. AT least that is what history shows.
Way to throw that in there. You almost went a whole post without blaming liberals. Was a close one.
The more capitalist we get, the more power we give to the private sector. A sector that the general public has no say in. Allowing for mistreatment and unfair policies. When the government controls something, the people can at least do something about it if they don't like it. They can vote people out of office.
If the private sector ran the schools without any government, we'd have 40 different accreditations, and companies that receive money from the accreditors to only accept graduates with that particular accreditation. It'd be a nightmare.
The Official God FAQ
Something is always wrong.
There is no system that can fix everything, maybe one aspect but it will fail in another. And people are fickle, they will suport whatever they think can give them what they want at the time, and it will change.
Debates like these are charged with fear, on both sides. People trying to look for that pot of gold that will extend mortality, they can be led to believe anything. Rights are thrown around a lot, as if that meant anything, the right of people to healthcare the right of property owners, rights don't exist, you have what you do because others allow you to and what you can keep for yourself.
Personally I want to avoid healthcare entirely, while I am young barring an accident I doubt I will need a doctor and I plan not to live long enough to get to a point where I need to, one way or another. Because no matter how it is run, you become dependant on medicine, your life dictated by a machine or pills, but what kind of life is that.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Just a few observations...
Trying to say that history is improving towards ever-increasing freedom is something that Marx's teacher, Hegel, came up with...and Hegel is the same man who said that the history of freedom ends in the state: it is the state that makes man free. Marx also predicted that market capitalism can't sustain itself, which is also something we've seen as of late.
Some of us here seem to equate universal healthcare as compelling the rich through violence or the threat of violence into doing something that is contrary to reason. I think that's a rather convoluted way of looking at it, but let's run with it for the sake of argument.
The reason that the "have nots" have to compel the "haves" through force is because the "haves" won't respond to anything else.
Like with anyone else--looking at things from a purely "rational choice" perspective--the way you get to the rich is to appeal to their self-interest. And since the overriding self-interest of the rich is to have peace and freedom so they may enjoy their wealth, holding this as a barganing chip is the most effective means of compelling them to do something.
What other alternatives are there, really?
I'm sure the wealthy want fame, and to be truthful, they probably would and could become famous if they all dip into their own pockets voluntarily to solve healthcare. The problem is that they aren't doing it, and if they are doing it, they aren't doing enough, because the problem is getting worse.
I'm sure if we promise them more wealth, they'll do something. But this only goes so far. They already have wealth, so making them wealthier isn't going to have as much of an affect. Not only that, but giving those who have healthcare more wealth is counterproductive to the end of making healthcare more available.
But the thing the rich want more than anything else is to be left alone to enjoy their wealth. Their estates are so bloated that they can't protect themselves, have no desire to protect themselves, and so they need other people to make sure they are safe. And therefore, taking this protection away or otherwise jeopardizing this safety is the surest way to get the rich to do something for others. Because how else is anyone going to appeal to the wants of someone who wants for nothing?
If my description sounds draconian and cold, it's no colder than anything that comes out of Ayn Rand's books. Unlike Rand though, I'm willing to call a spade a spade. Rand glorifies man as a pig in the trough, which is just as inhuman as glorifying the wolf who hunts the fattest sheep.
But it isn't me who made the sheep fat, nor is it me who is saying that the many poor have the right to use the means they have available to them (government included) to go after the rich few. It's something that is more fundamental than rights. It's about reality--and if Aristotle is correct--it's something that always has been the case, is now, and always will be the case.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
No, of course your son shouldn't have to die. No one should. I don't think that is necessarily the point here, though.
Certainly, Medicaid (the government) was helpful and useful to you (and to many others) in your situation and for that, I personally am thankful and wish you and your son only the best and hope that he has a long and happy life.
However, as someone who has had to rely on government-sponsored healthcare (military, VA, etc), I am opposed to government-run healthcare for one reason: in my experience, it is the lowest possible quality in the country.
When I was in the Army, there was a report released stating that military doctors (that is, doctors who operate solely in military medical facilities) were not required at that time to have a license to practice medicine. In point of fact, about a dozen doctors stationed at the same military medical facility as I was stationed in had been stripped of their licenses to practice medicine, yet they were employed by the federal government in government owned and operated facilities!
Currently, congress is all over the Veterans Administration healthcare system due to the fact (not supposition, fact) that veterans are receiving and have been receiving substandard medical care. People are dying every day because of substandard medical care in facilities owned and operated by the federal government. I ask you: did my son deserve to die five years ago because of the erroneous supposition that the federal government is the best possible healthcare provider? Did I deserve to nearly be killed by a nurse in a government run facility injecting me with a drug I was highly allergic to when both my records and the little hospital armband I was wearing made it abundantly clear (as did I when the nurse injected me and told me that she was "a nurse" and knew what she "was doing")? Did my friend's wife deserve to die of cancer that was allowed to spread because the doctors in the government-run medical facility just assumed that she was over 65, so she must be depressed and the depression was what was causing the agonizing pain that she was in? Did my father deserve to die, also of cancer, because the government-sponsored healthcare he was receiving determined that he simply had a muscle strain that was taking an exceptionally long time to heal when, in fact, he had spinal cancer? DId I deserve to live in constant pain for more than two years because the doctors at the government-run healthcare facility swore up and down that there was nothing wrong with my spine, while the civilian doctors immediately found via x-rays that I had nearly been internally decapitated (those civilian doctor bills ran up to about $20,000, I might add)? Do other people's children, fathers, and mothers deserve to die because the federal government has allowed physicians who have been stripped of their licenses to practice medicine to do so in government-run facilities and also allows those who are not qualified or who have files of patient complaints the length of my arm encompassing about 15 years of practice in a given facility to practice in government run facilities?
Before I will sign on or agree to any form of government-run healthcare, I am sorry to those of you who think it is a wonderful idea (ask Canadians about their healthcare. I have several Canadian friends - one of whom is an RN in Canada - who say the nationalized healthcare system there is so terrible that they come to the US for their healthcare), but the government must first improve its medical practices and bring itself in line with the accepted and acceptable standards of the medical community as a whole.
To the individual(s) who suggested that those of us who are opposed to the idea of nationalized heathcare have never done anything of note or earned anything in our lives, I would like to point out that I worked two jobs all through high school. I entered the military three years after graduating high school, and during those three years, I worked no less than two jobs at a time in order to pay my own way. I was accepted to a prestigious university but because my parents couldn't afford it, I paid my own way through college - partly using the GI Bill benefits of my time in the Army, and mostly using my own wages earned by working in the field that I was going to school to learn. Upon graduation from college, I attended further education, which I paid for completely out of pocket. During my marriage, I owned a house, two cars, and numerous other items, all of which I worked hard to earn the money to pay for. Now divorced, I pay my own way through life as I always have. My mother and father never gave me anything (unless you count the one plane ticket my father paid for so that I could attend my grandfather's funeral - and I paid him back for that); quite the opposite. I paid my parents' bills for about three years before my father died and continued to pay all of my mother's bills (plus my own) and about half of my sister's bills for two to three years after my father died. I worked for quite some time in the television industry and was well-regarded in my field and I am a 100% disabled veteran who became disabled defending your right to make errorneous, flawed, and arrogant assumptions about me and people like me. Such broad generalizations are dangerous - never assume the person who disagrees with you is too young, too selfish, or too uneducated to understand what they are saying. Some of us speak from long experience with the matter at hand and to imply otherwise is incredibly disrespectful. Still, though I believe your opinion causes you to appear to be an arrogant imbecile, I will defend to the death your right to express that opinion.
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I doubt that an healtcare like the one we have in Canada would ever work in the state for a lot of reason. Too many folks down there who freak out with less than 10% in tax.
The big thing that most people miss on this issue is the proportion of military expediture in the U.S. budget. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. to have a single-payer healthcare system as things stand now.
Personally I agree with those comparing healthcare to law enforcement- looking at medicine as a for-profit enterprise is essentially evil.
I've resisted posting in this thread because I do not see a good solution here. The current system is pathetically inadequate and getting worse. If you are confused about this please visit any big-city ED pretty much any day of the week (although saturday evening would be best).
The "Ayn Rand" types fail to realize that no matter what, there will always be people that are not smart or strong enough to take care of themselves. Condemning them to be pruned from the human race in some brutal form of natural selection (if they can't afford their own health care, screw em!) is not something I can imagine sane, empathetic, and compassionate people allowing to happen.
As far as the massive COSTS of healthcare, I can tell you that if we can move the focus from REACTIVE medicine to PREVENTATIVE medicine, the costs will drop across the board. Many of the causes of multiple comorbid conditions (obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, environmental hazard exposure, etc) would be a LOT cheaper to treat through education and hazard mitigation than they are through management of illness.
On the other hand our HIGHER standard of living has now created a situation where the vast majority of the population lives long enough to require EXTREMELY expensive longterm care (frequently with difficult to treat chronic illnesses like alzheimers).
So what do I think? At the end of the day, absolutely basic healthcare should be provided for all people. As it stands now though, the only thing keeping the military balance of power on the planet is the massive military strength and technical superiority of the United States. Personally I'd like to see domestic policy changes (like drug legalization, management, and taxation) to help fund sane healthcare policy. But like I said, in spite of the fact that I deal with this every day I don't see any simple solutions.
Edit- typo
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
The big thing that most people miss on this issue is the proportion of military expediture in the U.S. budget. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the U.S. to have a single-payer healthcare system as things stand now.
Personally I agree with those comparing healthcare to law enforcement- looking at medicine as a for-profit enterprise is essentially evil.
I've resisted posting in this thread because I do not see a good solution here. The current system is pathetically inadequate and getting worse. If you are confused about this please visit any big-city ED pretty much any day of the week (although saturday evening would be best).
The "Ayn Rand" types fail to realize that no matter what, there will always be people that are not smart or strong enough to take care of themselves. Condemning them to be pruned from the human race in some brutal form of natural selection (if they can't afford their own health care, screw em!) is not something I can imagine sane, empathetic, and compassionate people allowing to happen.
As far as the massive COSTS of healthcare, I can tell you that if we can move the focus from REACTIVE medicine to PREVENTATIVE medicine, the costs will drop across the board. Many of the causes of multiple comorbid conditions (obesity, alcohol abuse, smoking, environmental hazard exposure, etc) would be a LOT cheaper to treat through education and hazard mitigation than they are through management of illness.
On the other hand our HIGHER standard of living has now created a situation where the vast majority of the population lives long enough to require EXTREMELY expensive longterm care (frequently with difficult to treat chronic illnesses like alzheimers).
So what do I think? At the end of the day, absolutely basic healthcare should be provided for all people. As it stands now though, the only thing keeping the military balance of power on the planet is the massive military strength and technical superiority of the United States. Personally I'd like to see domestic policy changes (like drug legalization, management, and taxation) to help fund sane healthcare policy. But like I said, in spite of the fact that I deal with this every day I don't see any simple solutions.
Edit- typo
If you care about people, no one is stopping you. help them That does not give you the right to force others to.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation of how we could offer something like emergency medical services without organization on a govenment level.
Public health affects everyone.. I'm perfectly OK with telling people they are obligated to help support public health and safety if they want to live in a community.
Seriously, tell us all how something like this would work in your universe? Or would you just let people die on the street? Is that the downside of "freedom"?
deviliscious: (PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)
I'd just LOVE to hear your explanation of how we could offer something like emergency medical services without organization on a govenment level.
Public health affects everyone.. I'm perfectly OK with telling people they are obligated to help support public health and safety if they want to live in a community.
Seriously, tell us all how something like this would work in your universe? Or would you just let people die on the street? Is that the downside of "freedom"?
Please justify forcing people to medically care for one another. I think that is the bridge no one here has crossed.
Medicine, hospitals medical technology, all these things HAPPENED before government got involved, In fact, most of them happened in a country with almost no government intervention. Insurance rose the same way.
Then some very nice people got the idea to use STATE funds to help others. Then some very nice people decided to federalize that. This led to, as everything government does, into spiraling costs do to way governments spend money -- without market discipline. The same thing has happened in education, the military, and everything government has gotten involved in. You have a (near) infinite supply of money now governed by politics, not the market and charity, to do something taht people have infinite wants for. That spells doom economically, every time.
It certainly sped up certain things happening -- but at the cost of spiraling prices and growing shortages (oy growing shortages).
This led to more and more government to cover the rising costs caused by government until the system is nearly bust now -- throughout the world, Worldwide we have allowed government intervention into our economy to bankrupt us all.
The world is nearing total bankrupcy from this orgy of government.
I will continue to argue against it, as people like me have been doing for a very long time.
How will I solve the world's problems? I can't. No one can. I can only help out where and when we can. I will never advocate doing so by forcing others however. Government doesn't solve the problem eiuther -- it kicks the can down the road and makes matters worse for the future, something taht we are witnessing the final results of now -- a worldwide recession/depression caused by governments spending more than they had, pumping up the money to fake being able to afford it -- leading to the best we are in now.
And guys like me are forced to say, "See? this is what we've been talking about all along." And then the people blame GREED when it was mixing love and force that did it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I do help people. My life is dedicated to that end.
So you think the way to go with medical care is that we should all do our part seperately? Like I should set up an ambulatory surgical care center in my living room? My neighbor could put a level one trauma center in his garage?
Yeah, I see your point.. no need to bring the collective resources of government into it.
Government is only made up of the things we choose to do by force. Everything government does, in the end, is backed up with a gun and jail time. That's NOT the apropriate way to love one's neighbor, which is what helping those in need is all about, In fact, when you mix brute force with love, you kill it every time.
Government is not a thing with "collective resources" to use as we see fit. It is the "natural monopoly" of force. As such it is horribly inappropriate for the distrubution of our charity and love.
Right Fisher. And I suppose we're to trust the collective "Church" (note capital C) to extend their love and charity to society. Yeah, I can just see how that's gonna go when some gay guy comes traipsing into the local church in need of help for something....help with ANYTHING, for that matter. Let's call up Westboro Baptist Church and see if THEY will help him. (Not saying all churches are like WBC, but you're really reaching here, Buddy.) Church going people cover just as broad of a spectrum between lack of compassion and compassion as the general populace does. You're assuming that because you feel YOU have a "heart for humanity" that other church going people do. (Notice me being careful not to single out "Christians," but saying ALL "church goers.")
Sounds like a lovely idea. The problem is, it will never ever work that way. You're imagining a utopia where people actually give a shit about each other, and that, dear Fisher, doesn't exist and never will....on this earth.
That's the difference between us. I trust love, you trust brute force.
No....I trust NEITHER. Trusting love is foolish because you cannot determine what is in the heart of OTHER people. You can't even truly know your OWN heart (the Bible says that the heart is deceitful). Trusting "love" is trusting an ethereal emotion, choice, or idea that often doesn't even act in the best interests of those that it purports to "love." Define love. Try to define it. You cannot. Because it means something different to everyone who utters the word. Most of mankind "loves" no one but themselves. And your Christian definition of love doesn't even compel most Christians to act in loving ways, so how do you suppose that's going to work across a much broader spectrum? It's not. (No offense to Christians, or to people of other faiths either.)
"Brute force," as you call it, is what attempts to keep society from eating itself WHOLE. You're calling the law, or laws of the land, "brute force." The Bible, by the way, says to obey the laws of the land. You might want to look that one up. The law is what ATTEMPTS to keep criminals off the street and tries to guide millions of people in the right direction (because after all, dear sir, EVERYONE is not Christian, nor does EVERYONE even have a basic code of ethics and morals by which they live. There are people that actually have no definitive conscience to convict them of "right" and "wrong" at ALL).
This way of the "law" can also not be trusted, because it lends to a hunger for power in politics, etc.
I know YOU think "love" can do this. Your BRAND of love, i.e. "Christian" love, has had many centuries to "love this world into a better state." It has failed. Sure....ideally, "love is the answer." The problem is.....the kind of "love" that you're talking about, doesn't exist in the general populace. It doesn't even exist in a LOT of the "Church." I think you have a very overly optimistic idea of the "good of humanity." That is noble for you to think that way, but it is also unrealistic.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club