"Sicko".....just finished watching it..

[StangerBanger96]

DaveH;193895 wrote:
I will go ahead and say that our health system is awesome. We have the best doctors, the most advanced facilities and we lead the world in new medical technology by a long shot.

Brought to you in part by a NON-socialized healthcare system. We are the world leader in R&D on new drugs/treatments. Socialize our healthcare system and wave byebye to all that. We R&D it, generic brands produce it and sell it WAY below the "name brand" price through Canada or a generic name.

[thrash]

Something can be #1 and still suck. The US is #1 and still has stuff about it that sucks. When you're on top, the goal is to improve (or simply suck less, said differently), not to gaze downward and think about how much better than #2 you are.

Re-read what i said. Healthcare is not a right, because in order to guarantee it you have to be willing to kill someone else. When giving you something would require enslaving someone else, that's slavery. We've abolished the right to own slaves in this country.

Our private care system ends up taking care of lots of people that can't pay, for better or worse. I think there's some kind of balance between hospitals with locked doors vs government mandated salaries, standard treatments, rationed care, etc.

I don't mind Michael Moore criticising things. He's just a dumbass and doesn't know what he's asking for... that's all.

I think a lot of people in other countries don't know what they're missing. If you read news reports from them you'll see stuff like... "those infavor of continuing universal care tout its advantages like being able to see a practicioner within 6 weeks of requesting an appointmnet"

6 weeks ?

People generally develop a level of satisfaction based on what they are accustomed to, not some absolute metric.

Also, irrespective of how much people like thier systems, none of them are sustainable and they have lower performance than what we're already getting.

[Guest]

thrash;193911 wrote:
I think a lot of people in other countries don't know what they're missing. If you read news reports from them you'll see stuff like... "those infavor of continuing universal care tout its advantages like being able to see a practicioner within 6 weeks of requesting an appointmnet"

6 weeks ?

That's better than I get at Meritcare actually (non-emergency of course). I once called in to have a wart removed, had to wait 2 months before I could get in (was willing to go to any of their clinics even.....not just one particular one w/ a particular Dr....any clinic). I've also had to wait over 6 weeks to get in for a complete annual physical (this was to my regular family practitioner) so I'd say we are already there in this country.

[amicheze]

thrash;193911 wrote:
Healthcare is not a right

No. Definitely not. Especially not since the country was founded on the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can definitely have life without health care. Oh wait..

Health insurance isn't socialization. Health insurance is capitalism. If it were socialism, everyone would have it, not just those that could afford it.

Why exactly is their life expectancy higher than ours if we have so much better health care?

Personally, I'd rather be able to see a doctor (make an appointment for) within 6 weeks than not at all. You can't be serious in thinking that if someone has an emergency, they'd have to wait 6 weeks to see one.

[StangerBanger96]

amicheze;193919 wrote:
No. Definitely not. Especially not since the country was founded on the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can definitely have life without health care. Oh wait..

And I will only be happy if I have a Ferrari, a supermodel wife, 1000 acres of land, and free gasoline...therefore by your reasoning the Government should force people to give me these things.

Please...

Food/Water, Shelter, and Clothing are pretty much the only necessities of life. Anything more is just extra fluff that isn't a necessity.

[thrash]

Something can be a necessity without it being something the government will give you even if it means taking from somebody else.

The rights we talk about all men having are god-given, and require no-one else to satisfy them. You don't have the RIGHT to happiness.. you have the right to persue happiness without the government getting in the way.

You don't have the RIGHT to health care... beacuse God didn't give it to you and neither can the government, without taking something from somebody else.

I'm not saying people don't need healthcare in order to not get sick. I'm saying that giving you healthcare means taking something away from somebody else.

These artificial rights are nothing more than 51% of the population agreeing to steal from 49% of the population.

Hopefully John Galt will show up and start the Strike any day now. Michael Moore won't be invited...

[DaveH]

tjamz;193914 wrote:
That's better than I get at Meritcare actually (non-emergency of course). I once called in to have a wart removed, had to wait 2 months before I could get in (was willing to go to any of their clinics even.....not just one particular one w/ a particular Dr....any clinic). I've also had to wait over 6 weeks to get in for a complete annual physical (this was to my regular family practitioner) so I'd say we are already there in this country.

Was the wart on your butt? If so, the doctors were probably all fighting about who had to do it, and it took a few weeks of armwrestling before the loser finally had to do it.

:icon_geek:

[YellowEvo]

[QUOTE=bubba;193716]Well than get a job with benefits... Why should a couple people work and pay taxes so everyone else has free health care... QUOTE]

so being self employed i should be fucked if i come down with some huge sickness after payin for everything i have to have?

[Jim]

thrash;193926 wrote:
Something can be a necessity without it being something the government will give you even if it means taking from somebody else.

The rights we talk about all men having are god-given, and require no-one else to satisfy them. You don't have the RIGHT to happiness.. you have the right to persue happiness without the government getting in the way.

You don't have the RIGHT to health care... beacuse God didn't give it to you and neither can the government, without taking something from somebody else.

I'm not saying people don't need healthcare in order to not get sick. I'm saying that giving you healthcare means taking something away from somebody else.

These artificial rights are nothing more than 51% of the population agreeing to steal from 49% of the population.

Hopefully John Galt will show up and start the Strike any day now. Michael Moore won't be invited...

So the only "rights" we have the ones obtain from god?

[StangerBanger96]

Jim;193955 wrote:
So the only "rights" we have the ones obtain from god?

He was more than likely referring to the "God Given" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that the founding fathers spoke of...

[Jim]

This post is deleted!

[amicheze]

StangerBanger96 wrote:
And I will only be happy if I have a Ferrari, a supermodel wife, 1000 acres of land, and free gasoline...therefore by your reasoning the Government should force people to give me these things.

You forgot the little word "PURSUIT."No shit you don't have a right to happiness, but that's not what this thread is about.

thrash wrote:
Something can be a necessity without it being something the government will give you even if it means taking from somebody else.

The rights we talk about all men having are god-given, and require no-one else to satisfy them. You don't have the RIGHT to happiness.. you have the right to persue happiness without the government getting in the way.

You don't have the RIGHT to health care... beacuse God didn't give it to you and neither can the government, without taking something from somebody else.

I'm not saying people don't need healthcare in order to not get sick. I'm saying that giving you healthcare means taking something away from somebody else.

These artificial rights are nothing more than 51% of the population agreeing to steal from 49% of the population.

Hopefully John Galt will show up and start the Strike any day now. Michael Moore won't be invited...

So I can't get health care from the government without taking something from someone else? What exactly are we taking and from whom? By YOUR logic, only 51% of the population will ever have to go to the doctor, and the other 49% will have to fully pay for them. That's obviously ridiculous. Even with our current system, people lose things: time, money, dare I say time and money taking health insurance companies to court? /gasp! Yes, I do know people personally who have had to do that.

Did you forget about the police? Firefighters? They're basically the same thing - government run and for anyone to use whenever they need. Do we not need them? What are we taking away from whom to keep them running?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we have a lower life expectancy with a better health care system.

[Jim]

haha well, lets think back through what people have claimed was thier "god given rights," the crusades, manifest destiny, etc etc

I just don't think that a "right" is quite like he explains

[StangerBanger96]

amicheze;193958 wrote:
So I can't get health care from the government without taking something from someone else? What exactly are we taking and from whom?

NO YOU CAN'T. To get government healthcare (Medicaid, Chip, Medcare, etc.) you have to TAKE from other people to provide for yourself.

That's one point we're trying to make. Why should I be forced to pay for YOU? Just because that's what you think is "right" doesn't mean it should be that way...

But it would work out anyways right? I mean...Social Security has turned out to be such a great system :rolleyes:

[DaveH]

amicheze;193919 wrote:
Health insurance isn't socialization. Health insurance is capitalism. If it were socialism, everyone would have it, not just those that could afford it.

I guess I should have been clearer: The concept of insurance is socialistic, everyone pays into a central entity and that entity gives out the money as they deem needed.

[98sh]

What is it that "god" has given me again?

[amicheze]

StangerBanger96;193962 wrote:
NO YOU CAN'T. To get government healthcare (Medicaid, Chip, Medcare, etc.) you have to TAKE from other people to provide for yourself.

That's one point we're trying to make. Why should I be forced to pay for YOU? Just because that's what you think is "right" doesn't mean it should be that way...

But it would work out anyways right? I mean...Social Security has turned out to be such a great system :rolleyes:

OOOH. I get it. So you wouldn't want to pay for me, even though if you ever went to the doctor (which apparently from the way you're talking, you never would), I would have to pay for you. Nevermind the fact that I would also be paying for myself, and you would be paying for yourself.

Is that not how all other insurance companies are today? Everyone pays X company, and that company pays for their customer's medical bills. If you pay for health insurance, you're helping pay other peoples' bills, because chances are you'll be paying more in insurance than your total medical bills over your lifetime. If that weren't the case, insurance companies wouldn't exist, much less have record profits today.

It seems kind of hypocritical to me.

[StangerBanger96]

amicheze;193971 wrote:
OOOH. I get it. So you wouldn't want to pay for me, even though if you ever went to the doctor (which apparently from the way you're talking, you never would), I would have to pay for you. Nevermind the fact that I would also be paying for myself, and you would be paying for yourself.

Is that not how all other insurance companies are today? Everyone pays X company, and that company pays for their customer's medical bills. If you pay for health insurance, you're helping pay other peoples' bills, because chances are you'll be paying more in insurance than your total medical bills over your lifetime. If that weren't the case, insurance companies wouldn't exist, much less have record profits today.

It seems kind of hypocritical to me.

Insurance companies allow you to shop around. The same policy can cost much differently between companies, allowing you to shop around for the best policy for your needs. Those who don't get sick often can pay less than those who get sick more often or have other medical conditions. Socialized healthcare forces all to pay the same, so the person who rarely gets sick pays more for less care.

[PSiedTSi]

Alright, I think its time for a post here.

To whoever says we can get into the doctors faster than other countries obviously hasn't a ton of "non-ER" type incidents. As some of you know, my dad was recently diagnosed with cancer. I know from experience of all the APPOINTMENTs he has had to make multiple weeks/months in advance. Obviously I sort of expected it from Mayo Clinic, but simple procedures were booked 3-6 weeks in advance, at the minimum. His first diagnosis took almost 2 months. TWO months just to find out if he even had anything seriously wrong with him. Hell, we didn't even know what kind of cancer it was for about 4 months. Even now, he waits atleast 3 weeks to hear back about scopes, MRI's, biopsies, etc.

Now don't get me wrong, our healthcare system isn't terrible, but it's not that impressive, especially for the amount we pay. Every chemo session for him is $3700-$4000, and he has one every 3 weeks. ONE of his bottles of medication costs $75 COPAY everytime, and he has damn good insurance. His insurance company as of like July had paid out over $150k(thats about 7 months from the very beginning, before diagnosis). The co-pays of his insurance are still racking up. I don't have a number, because frankly I don't want to know how much his life is worth to a corporation.

So some of you who want to say our emergency care is instant, well it damn well better be, its an emergency, after all. I'd be willing to bet it's the same in England, Canada, and France.

Now I'm not saying socialized health care is the perfect answer, or that it would save my dad, because that would really have no effect on it, but what I am saying is please experience what it's like to really have to USE our health care system and health care CORPORATIONS. This is a perfect example of the BEST and WORST of capitalism.

Thanks and have a great night!

[thrash]

I apologize for using the word God and thus bringing the anti-religion folks out of their holes.

I was obviously alluding to the language of Jefferson where he discusses, in the Declaration of Independance, that all men are imbued with certain rights by their creator, whatever metaphysical entity you associate with that word.

Amongst those natural rights, "healthcare" was not on Jefferon's list.

My comment about "51% of people can always agree to steal from 49%" is just a reflection on all socialized government programs in any semi-democratic society. The reason that we are not a pure democracy is that democracy is mob rule. You can generally find some majority of people who are willing to enslave, tax, punish -- whatever -- some minority of the people. This is why laws must be found constitutional, and why we are a republic, not a pure democracy.

Property ownership is a natural right. This is a little weird -- you don't automatically "get" property, more like, the things that are yours are yours naturally, and are not granted to you by the state. Similarly, your life belongs to you and you alone, and is not granted to you by the state.

I don't understand how people can think health care is the same thing as concepts like property, life, freedom, etc.

Also, the idea that insurance is socialism is incorrect. I'm not aware of any true "mutual corporations" left providing health insurance. In a true mutual corporation, premiums are colllected and if there aren't many claims paid, then any surplus premiums are refunded to their members, and the entity operates as an effective non-profit.

That's not how insurance works. An insurance agency doesn't rely on strength in numbers or socialization per se, it is an investment strategy. Essentially, if you lend an insurance company money (premiums), they agree to pay you a specified amount in the event that you need them to. They take your money and they go off and invest it in various ways. As long as they invest wisely and don't pay too many claims, they make lots of money. Naturally, the more people that pay them premiums, the more money they can make and the less aggregate risk they potentially have. However, this is not a socialized cost-sharing scheme. The fundmanetal operation of an insurance carrier -- someone who takes a calculated risk of paying a claim, and in exchange for taking that possible future debt, collects a present small premium -- can work for a single entity.

That is -- a single human with sufficient funds can offer insurance to a single client. All that is involved is an actuarial risk assessment of the liklihood of paying a claim of size x in timeframe y. The question then becomes, based on x and y, and the risk factors, what premium "z" do i collect on an ongoing basis such that the client wants to pay the premium and i've got a good shot of making money on it?

There is a specific branch of mathematics that deals with assessing risk, calculating premiums, etc, called "Actuarial Science". People that figure this crap out for insurance companies are "Actuaries", and are about the biggest math nerds out there. As it so happens, my dad was the youngest "FSA' (Fellow of the Society of Actuaries) in the US back when he was younger, so I've heard a bit about insurance growing up

In any case, I hope that's not too confusing -- but essentially -- insurance isn't a socialized program. Insurance works if there is just 1 person holding a policy. Insurance can work better -- because of economies of scale, just like any other market -- if there are lots of people involved, but the fundamental principle is sound for the 2-party case. One party wants to pay to mitigate risk, the other party feels comfortable taking on that risk in exchange for money today.

Socialized medicine is something entirely different. The government is terrible at investing money (where's the accountability?) In socialized programs, some group of people collectively pay into a pool that feeds the costs of some other group of people (the two groups may overlap or they may not). There's no mechanism by which the money actually does anything useful; it's merely re-distribution of wealth. This is where my comment about "51% can agree to enslave 49%" comes from. A majority of people can usually convince themselves that making some minorty of people pay for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

How many of you people that want socialized care donate money to charity? Even your church?

I'd like to think that people are above "i want to get mine, and i want someone else to pay", but I'm not convinced that they are. Is there some argument for socialized medicine that doesn't boil down to that?