Healthcare Rationing

Ohh and I care just as much about your property rights as I do my  own. Everyone's are very very very important.

I think your problem is that you see wealth as the only factor of success in your life.

you are the one who said most, I said much of society.

Again, are you aware of the level of consumer debt in the US? Clear evidence that despite your beliefs, many americans simply are not fiscally responsible.

You may consider yourself run of the mill middle class, but remember that the median household income in america is about 50,000, so what many consider middle class is actually far above the true average.

Oh and origins are definitely beside the point, because obviously everyone has a totally equal shot at financial success right? Even those born in the projects, because america is totally fair and if you screw up or get sick it's your own damn fault.

it means that people seeking health care need to be protected from the coercive nature of the transaction.

People in need of health care are in a position where they have no way to bargain for their needs, whereas the doctor has the opportunity to get whatever he wants out of the situation. Do you at least agree that there is a conflict here?

let's contrast a person buying a TV and a person buying emergency services:

 if the TV salesman's price is too high, the buyer can walk away. The buyer has the power to reject the terms of service.

on the contrary

The patient needs the doctor to save his life, therefore, short of paying with his life, the patient has no option to walk away from the deal. The doctor can exploit the patient when his right to compensation goes unchecked.  Now, it's not impossible to operate as a non-profit agent, however there needs to be a lot of change.

Right now we're trying to initiate change to protect the patient from the insurance companies who are exploiting health needs for profit, with doctors being an adjunct in the situation. A full solution would, in my eyes, incorporate cheaper education for doctors so they don't have to invest $350k in med school.

this of course probably needs a whole 'nother thread in itself.

No, you cant even get it right. "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is a large difference between right to life and right to pursue life. Im pretty sure the guy I quoted said, "right to health care." Even if he didnt, I keep hearing people say it. So, since there's a right to life, there's a life to simply plain good health? The right to life does not include simply good health. Health/health care does not equal life

K not only did he get it right and you didn't, you just said correctly in the previous sentence only to bungle it 5 words later. Where in what you quoted does it say the right to pursue life? It clearly says right to life, right to pursue happiness. If you're going to be a nitpicker then at least live up to your own standards.

gnartron or whatever the hell your name is...

Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2009[44] Member state Contribution
(% of UN budget)  United States 22.00%  Japan 16.624%  Germany 8.577%  United Kingdom 6.642%  France 6.301%  Italy 5.079%  Canada 2.977%  Spain 2.968%  China 2.667%  Mexico 2.257% Other member states 23.908%



















whoa now. Canada really stepping up. ill be generous and say Canada pays for 3 whole percent. hot damn.

ill give you a cookie if you can name the person that coined the term "united nations" ill give you another cookie if you can name the organization that was replaced by the UN... (no google, be honest)


o yeah do you have any idea on what Canada's voting record is on the security council.... ;)

Canada GDP = $1.271 trillion

USA GDP = $13.84 trillion


aprox numbers there...



So seeing as Canadas GDP is less that 1/10th of the US, i dont see how you would expect them to provide more than 1/10th of the US's contribution to the UN. In fact, 1/10th of 22% = 2.2%. Canada gives 3%, so, you could make the case that they give more than the US.

No, He did not get it right. I quoted directly from the Declaration of Independence. He said incorrectly, the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness(or something very similar).

Where in what you quoted does it say the right to pursue life?

p-face:
1."we have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness"
2."basic good health is necessary for the pursuit of life."

The original quote:
"we have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, basic good health is necessary for the pursuit of life... is this really hard to grasp? we're not talking about the right to have whatever health care you want, simply plain good health."


I think you got the quote from the declaration of independence and the quote from p-face confused because I quoted it weirdly in my post. When he says, "we have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness," he is saying there is a right to pursue life. Im sorry, I have to nitpick on this, because my original point is that the right to life and the right to pursue life are very different(it is clear he thought the declaration said and meant pursuit of life since he goes on to say "good health is necessary for the pursuit of life").

League of nations? I don't know who came up with 'UN'

This is just stupid. Canada has 30 million people, the USA has over 300 million. Multiply 3% by 10, and per capita, Canada donates about 25-30% more per person than the USA does. Not that that actually matters whatsoever to anything that you could possibly be arguing about.

Politics in NSG: More Useless than Ever

I just read through this entire thread, I should have shot myself instead.

^agreed

my apologies. i was merely backing up an earlier statement that without the USA supporting the united nations. well ill let you beat around the idea of a world where the UN might not exist. most certainly not in the capacity it currently operates.... (if the USA cut the umbilical cord)

cool beans per person you guys donate more.

my point was the USA spends a shit ton of money. (of course im sure you know this JD) but i dont think jenifa had a firm grasp of this. while we do spend all this money, you must understand that right now our current budget allocations really hold no room for spending an un godly ammount of money on government healthcare... we are FLAT BROKE. we are running HUGE deficits, we are in so much debt its not even laughable. (although depending on how you interpret the debt we are not in as bad of shape as after WW2)

 my overall point in this thread. is we can simply not afford government healthcare if the status quo remains. something drastic will have to change. and i fear that change is going to be a sweeping tax hike on many more tax brackets than what our current president propagated during the presidential campaign...

o yes government healthcare reform has been tried in the US. look into what Romney pulled in MA.... 

i find it mildly entertaining that while you claim this is a useless endeavor you devote time to such a useless undertaking... ;)

the way i see it. only one more reason to hate the neighbors to the north.... grrrr!


(take a joke NS) (check your sarcasm meters)

i'm still not sure of your point, pursuit of life and life are not significantly different, or i didn't mean them to be. 

basic good health is still necessary for life, if you are sick and dying, your right to life is being deprived.

But i'm glad you've retained your right to nitpick, even when it hinders your ability to grasp the concept, and use some charity when interpreting arguments.

however i would ask where in the constitution it gives you a right to my property? my time. my money. these are all MY things.

stop being ridiculous, being non-profit is far from unconstitutional.

Please tell me someone was watching the town hall event with Arlen Specter? That was such good television! Usually, all I get to see on tv is pundits arguing over Jacko's death. This is something I can at least care about. People arguing over what it better for society. A lot better idea that being passive and letting things happen.

While I'm leaning towards a side I don't like to be overly talkative on the subject. I'm just glad people are starting to talk about government again. Maybe reform is closer than I think it is.

wait. i agree if you CHOOSE to be not for profit. but i fail to see how the government has the ability under the constitution to tell me YOU have a right to MY property...

what property? If you are talking about the benefits gained through exploitation, then you don't really have a right to it do you?

your doctor exploits you? i suggest finding a new doctor. (ok smartassness aside)

i know im riding the dick of the free market. (way better than the governments dick) (not saying you do but there are certainly many who do) but in a free market solution you would simply change doctors to one that does not charge you X much, or some other factor for why you chose him or her to administer care... the elephant in the room is in cases government care takes away choice. you're stuck with what youve got, good, bad or otherwise..


let me guess Walmart and every other big business exploited theyre way to the top?

i would ask in your world is there a thing as a good honest profit? hell even farmers can "exploit" killing animals, ripping up the land. is there such a thing as a good profit, / honest days work?

doctors without borders.

did you miss the part about how a person in need of dire medical help doesn't really have the power to negotiate the terms of service with his doctor? It's just the nature of medicine.

as for free market solutions... really? tell me how that works in an emergency situation... are you really going to sit down and talk with the ER doc, and say well i know i'm having a heart attack, but if i go 2 hours down the highway i think i can get a better deal.

ya right.

as for how a government option limits your choice, let's take a moment and think about this. Let's compare what is now, and what could be.

right now with managed care, there is a highly fragmented system. I'm not sure what you're experience is with the health system, but I'll paint you a personal experience picture, (although i've always ragged on you for using them, you obviously haven't ever thought them to be a problem.)

So anyways, to my anecdote, (to skip this look for next bold) I'm from the east coast, and I was covered under my parents health insurance. Now when I went to school out in Colorado my HMO does not have coverage in this area, it's called out of network. When I call my health care provider, to request to see an out of network specialist, I have to go through a lengthy approval period. I have to have my physician in CT, who hasn't seen me, recommend to my HMO that I go see a doctor in CO, and then this recommendation get's reviewed by some other doctor who works for my HMO.

At this point, we're on the cusp of 3 weeks of back and forth trying to get approval for me to just go to the doctor, just for this one instance.

as a note, i'm dealing with a chronic condition, and when symptoms strike up again, and i want to get shit done as fast as possible I try a new process to see a specialist. First, to appease my HMO, i have to go to the ER, ($100 co-pay for me) and as I suspected, the ER can't do anything for me except offer a prescription for pain pills and give me an ace bandage.  Now at the time, being in school, I am also provided with insurance through the university. While the medical center on campus isn't great, I do get a recommendation from them to go get an MRI to check out my knee, (where the problem is) . I pay for the MRI, and my HMO denies coverage. Because my school doctors are out of network as well, their recommendation has no weight with my HMO.

Now my insurance is pissed, although I understood what i needed to do, what was good treatment for me, and what was unnecessary, I had had to follow protocol. Even still, following protocol isn't as easy as it sounds, i thought I was doing the right thing, using my school doctors to get me recommendation for treatment, but it doesn't count. And I can't have my physician from back date a recommendation. So now I'm stuck with the bill for the MRI, and i've got to fight against my insurance, telling them that I tried to do the right thing, following what they wanted me to do. However to make things worse, the insurance companies don't ever let you talk directly to the person working on your case. You've got to go through nurses that will discuss the situation with the doctors. Somehow in the middle of the process I got blamed for not seeking treatment from doctors in CT.

In the end, after long perseverance, and a whole lot of work from my physicians office, we get the insurance company to pay the bill, but this is far from a good system, with a lot of choice.


with a single payer system, I'd have been free to see a doctor anywhere. no geographical limitations, It wouldn't matter where i was, and where i was from. that's the freedom you're talking about.  





as a tangent to your smart ass  wal*mart  comment, i'll just say industries aren't outsourcing to Asia because they like the general tso's chicken. low standards of living means the population doesn't have much power to bargain for better wadges. given that big business may provide for better options than what else is available to the locals, i don't think it changes the fact what is being done is exploitative.

i found the response to the constitution question, if we consider this health care reform to be providing for the general welfare of the people of the United States then

Article 1 section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State

He's absolutely right. Lester B Pearson was secretary general of the U.N and started the U.N peace keeping force. He also killed the Canadian military but that's not the point.