User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should the United States move towards providing universal health care?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    47 62.67%
  • No

    28 37.33%
First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 146

  1. #101
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Falcrius needs to stop giving ''this is more the rare exception, not the rule'' annecdotal stories in the third person because when falcarius speaks in third person it doesn't make his experience any closer to being the norm. Risen hopes falcarius understands .
    One getting a lecture on forum conduct from Risen is like getting a lecture from Victor on perspicuous writing. The main difference is Victor is more than ingenious enough to acknowledge difference between informative writing and persuasive writing. He understands non-fiction stories about ones self are always informative writing, because it communicates knowledge about situations, events, and facts; but while at the same time it is not necessary told to be persuasive. Victor also seemingly has the sagacity unlike Risen to comprehend when one wants to carry out the highest form of capitalisation, they should at the very least use a capital letter for a proper noun; for example, Falcarius' name.

    Falcarius thinks Risen should keep his wretched thoughts to himself until he has at least learnt how to spell the word 'anecdotal', and how to stop using ever again.

    Falcarius is sorry to break this to Risen, he has never made the claim writing in third person makes his experiences any more common place, but rather it was Risen's attestation about Falcarius. He in fact actually writes in third person for the opposite reasons for the most part. Third person writing is the most objective and authoritative type of writing but also the most distant; hence, allows the writer more freedom in how a story is told. For example, when one wants to write about negative topics they don't have to imply that any particular person is guilty even if one knows they are. It is what politicians, especially cabinet ministers, do when they criticise their own party.

    Another reason Falcarius talks in third person is similar to the reason Elmo from Sesame Street does the same. It is a in joke for comedy reasons rather than because of egotism, about the thought of one talking to a dinosaur who not only has good self-awareness but also self-reflexiveness. The Elmo joke is about the fact little children talk silly, he mimics the behaviour of many preschooler in his speech, because like most three-and-a-half old humans he has not learnt pronouns yet. Despite this he still has a much better linguistics ability than George W. Bush.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  2. #102
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    That's just it - the free market isn't interested in providing health care - it's interested in profit. That's the goal - I'm not trying to pass judgment on that, but it's a simple fact.
    The free market isn't an entity but an observable collection of individual actions. Be careful not to anthropomorphize phenomena.

    If we accept that participants in the free market are interested in profit, but are restrained by the law; members of the government are interested in power, yet they actually wield the law. The foundation of socialized medicine mandates which doctors should practice what and where; the amount of money doctors can be paid to carry out which procedures on private individuals, be they lifesaving or preventative or quotidian; and how members of the politically favored may sidestep such a constrictive regimen to obtain elective medical services for themselves and associates. That is the height of inequity, and a terrible solution for a market in which brilliant, costly products and services have unfortunately been asseverated as a right.

  3. #103
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    That's just it - the free market isn't interested in providing health care - it's interested in profit.
    The free market isn't an entity but an observable collection of individual actions. Be careful not to anthropomorphize phenomena.
    I agree that anthropomorphizing phenomena is something to be wary of in this or any other argument, but here I don't think it's too much of a stretch to go from "the free market isn't interested in" to "people who run profit-driven enterprises aren't focusing on" - in my mind, it amounts to the same thing. Let's face it - health insurance companies aren't gauged on how many of their customers are in good health - but on the financial return they provide to shareholders. To me, that's a direct conflict of interest to providing health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    If we accept that participants in the free market are interested in profit, but are restrained by the law; members of the government are interested in power, yet they actually wield the law.
    I think you're overstating things with respect to the government here - certainly I'd think it applies fairly accurately to a subsection of government, but government (and government employees) isn't a monolithic organization. It's also important to note that government, and government programs, are accountable to the public (in a way that corporations, for practical purposes, aren't) - I do think it's possible to have a public program that's really focused on delivering services (granted, there are potential pitfalls, as there are in any organization) as opposed to extracting profit. Removing that conflict of interest is an important step, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    The foundation of socialized medicine mandates which doctors should practice what and where; the amount of money doctors can be paid to carry out which procedures on private individuals, be they lifesaving or preventative or quotidian;
    I don't believe this is a necessary result of a government health care program (although it's a common assumption by folks who don't like the idea). All a government program does is ensure that everyone *has* coverage - it doesn't tell doctors what they can practice and where. It doesn't tell them that they are or aren't allowed to do for patients outside the government-funded program. Additionally, none of the fears that you state apply *only* to a government program - they also apply to private insurance companies. If anything, (as I believe the Canadian program shows), public health care takes more decisions out of the hands of financers and puts them into the hands of physicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    and how members of the politically favored may sidestep such a constrictive regimen to obtain elective medical services for themselves and associates.
    Again, I don't see how this is a necessary consequence of a public program, and it's a problem with the current system already (just substitute "rich" for "politically favored" - and let's face it, there's a LOT of overlap there). I also doubt that a public program is necessarily more "constrictive" in the effort to obtain medical service than a private one - if anything, the reduction in the conflict of interest between profit and care would, I think, tend to streamline the process in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    That is the height of inequity, and a terrible solution for a market in which brilliant, costly products and services have unfortunately been asseverated as a right.
    I think you're underestimating the effect that commodity processes and products can affect health care for those who can't get any now, and overestimating the effect of the private insurance industry has on the development of new health care procedures (much, if not most of which are funded by... you guessed it, government research grants).

    I'm sure I've beaten this horse to death and beyond by now anyway, but I don't consider health care to be a luxury. A fancy car, a big house, the newest gadgets, etc. - sure, I don't have much trouble saying that a "free" market can provide a solution to resource distribution. Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows my opinion on the subject by now .
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #104
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    To me, that's a direct conflict of interest to providing health care.
    But remember, insurers don't provide medical treatment. They pay money to customers who have won the bet over risk of injury or ill health. Why should private companies be obligated to deliver a service?


    I think you're overstating things with respect to the government here - certainly I'd think it applies fairly accurately to a subsection of government, but government (and government employees) isn't a monolithic organization.
    This was on the condition that we accepted all private individuals to be driven by profit. Are all doctors, pharmaceutical professionals and insurers motivated by the amount of money they make? No, but I allow that for the sake of an argument because the implication of your statement is that profit is an unacceptable motive and, it can be reasoned, those in the government have no dubious motives.

    My local public school system's former superintendent, whom I highly respected, would occasionally disparage charter schools. "Profit" -- he would spit the word out, and he clearly believed that school board members, administrators, union representatives and others acted out of nothing but altruism. Are you sure you don't assume the same?


    It's also important to note that government, and government programs, are accountable to the public (in a way that corporations, for practical purposes, aren't)
    Not true, and especially obvious these days. The leadership of private companies changes all the time; products and services are introduced, modified or retracted as often; and businesses fail by the hundred. Meanwhile, programs in many states remain intact; while the federal government grows in size. On what authority? . . . that of the law. Certainly not economics, which is an ineluctable means of holding a corporation accountable.



    I don't believe this is a necessary result of a government health care program (although it's a common assumption by folks who don't like the idea).
    How can rationing and compulsory assignment not occur when a finite amount of doctors must, by law, practice a variety of specialties across an immense geographical area? Facilities in Canada and the United Kingdom are for want of ample specialized staff and equipment all the time. Waiting lists are real.

    Hillary Clinton included such mandates in her proposal from 15 years ago -- not out of malice but necessity.

    President Obama has espoused the same, most recently in regards to senescence.

    THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people --

    Q: But the money might never have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother's hip replacement.

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult, sensitive decisions we're going to have to make.
    And that brings me to my next point.

    I also doubt that a public program is necessarily more "constrictive" in the effort to obtain medical service than a private one - if anything, the reduction in the conflict of interest between profit and care would, I think, tend to streamline the process in most cases.
    Under a free-market system, an individual could be impelled by a patient's spirit, or whatever, and seek means to pay. The president has adumbrated the legally enforced denial of treatment.


    I think you're underestimating the effect that commodity processes and products can affect health care for those who can't get any now, and overestimating the effect of the private insurance industry has on the development of new health care procedures (much, if not most of which are funded by... you guessed it, government research grants).

    I'm sure I've beaten this horse to death and beyond by now anyway, but I don't consider health care to be a luxury.
    Let me restate what I wrote. In the United States and select Western countries, medical technology advances at a rate that matches or surpasses market forces that would otherwise cause depreciation. So however prevalent miracle work may be, this circumstance contributes to its expense. Yet regulation won't fix that.

    You and I both want medicine to improve and extend the lives of American citizens, but I believe that the state is not only unessential, but inimical.

  5. #105
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    I'm particularly concerned over the idea of the government actually forcing people to take "affordable" health care coverage or else face certain penalties. WTF has this country come to? How have we let such a forgone minority of the population (perhaps represented as a majority in this section of the forum) come to crap on everything this country stands for, to crap on the rights, freedoms, and self responsibility of the individual.

    It's not anybody elses right, and certainly not the government's, to mandate that I take its services. That's just tyrannical. I take responsibility for my own god damn health, yet at the same time being a part of a s*** bag system where I will have to be paying for everyone else who isn't "responsible" with their own health OF THEIR OWN ACCORD. Whether or not parts of a health care reform would include government forcing/coercing the population to take up better health habits, you can't go very far if people aren't willing to do it for themselves of their own will, and people like myself will still be paying for others regardless.

  6. #106
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    It might help people to understand that for some, we are already providing public health care at lower-cost and higher-quality.

    For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received.

    And all that was achieved at a relatively low cost. In the past 10 years, the number of veterans receiving treatment from the VA has more than doubled, from 2.5 million to 5.3 million, but the agency has cared for them with 10,000 fewer employees. The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.
    Hundreds of thousands abandoned private physicians and enrolled in the lower-cost and higher-quality VA care.
    But conservatives fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector.
    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME

    One of the major negatives about private health care in the US is cost. All other developed nations have universal health care, yet the US pays twice as much per person, and we don't have universal coverage.

  7. #107
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It might help people to understand that for some, we are already providing public health care at lower-cost and higher-quality.






    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME

    One of the major negatives about private health care in the US is cost. All other developed nations have universal health care, yet the US pays twice as much per person, and we don't have universal coverage.
    What worries me is that we might end up with a situation where we're paying for universal coverage but we fail to adequately lower health care costs. That would be a nightmare.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    We're not just too big, we're also heterogeneous. That makes it much more difficult to get people to agree on things, because we people have less in common. As a result, we get junk legislation, compromises that appease constituents, but don't actually work.
    Now that's a damn good, short, synopsis of US politics.

  9. #109
    Is Willard in Footloose!! CJ99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    582

    Default

    I'm slowly reading my way through this thread as I'm interested in the debate that seems to be such a big deal in the US. Being from the UK where we have a national health service and (relatively) low income tax preffered to many counrties I find it quite scary how everyone is measuring the value of the health system in $ and not much else.

    Thats the thing about business in Europe and the US (UK being a sort of weird in between thing in terms of right wing ----- left wing) in Europe a business is measured in not only currency but in the value its service provides for the country. A business could make 2,000,000 a year and employ 3000 people but the goverment often will give priority to the equivilent business that makes 1,000,000 and employs 6000 people because that business give more to the community.

    Its the same with health care. Its not decided by just cost but many other effects. It seems that the US coverage of the issue never points out that it may have many effects on the US long term that make it a better country overall.

    I read one of the early posts by Jeffster and most of it was related to money, all about how the goverment are stealing money and the service won't be better cause they still get there money, money, money, money! What about the fact that with a universal health care like the UK has you would never have to worry about health insurance, wherever you are in the US (and in alot of places outside the US) you would get free medical care. The vast majority of common illnesses/diseases/"whatever is wrong with you" will be addressed for free just by walking into a hospital.

    Right now outside my work its all snow and ice. I could go out there slide crack my head open and I would get taken straight to accident and emergancy.

    And what is the price of that backup? A slightly higher income tax? On my wage I would pay the equivilent of $350.46 more a year! And thats all my health care sorted.

    Tell me. Does you health insurance policy cost more than that? Because if so then on a lower end salary like mine its cheaper!!! Not more expensive.
    "I'd never die for my beliefs, I might be wrong"

    "Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairys at the bottom of it too"

    "Intelligence is being able to hold too opposing views in the mind at the one time without going crazy" - Now all I need to figure out is if I'm intelligent or crazy!

  10. #110
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    I didn't choose because I didn't see my specific choice.

    Socialized medicine or free market...but not this mandatory health insurance bill (similar to car insurance in California) put out by Obama, "The Democratic Party" and the insurance industry.

    What if the beef industry mandated we buy so much beef a year? or the auto industry how many cars we had to buy after so many years? or the military industrial complex telling us how many invasions we have to be involved in (well maybe they are already doing this)...The ommsision of a 'public option' only kills the competitive choice of not choosing American health insurance or the public saving up their own money and paying cash. These options kept the insurance industry somewhat competitive now competition and choice are severely limited and the current players are essentially being given a monopoly and a captive audiance. In otherwords the country is being turned into one gigantic "debtors prison".
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

Similar Threads

  1. House Republicans released the American Health Care Act
    By Bush Did 9/11 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 07-28-2017, 05:17 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-21-2015, 03:35 PM
  3. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  4. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 04:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO