Health Care for Everyone

[Swift]

Gonz, did you miss my last reply?

 

[ledhed]

My Brother in law recently died from cancer . He received the best health care available on the planet , including stem cell and other experimental treatment . He had excellent insurance and also his coverage as a former LT Colonel in the US airforce . He Flew many misssions in Vietnam and was exposed to agent orange . It produced a cancer that was so aggressive , that despite the best the world had to offer he could only live 2 years after being Diagnosed .

My other friend Dave was wounded in Vietnam ..he was a door gunner on a huey ..and forgot to get out of the way of a burst of ak fire that tore his abdomen up ..he had kevlar where stomache muscle should be . He went on to do not quite so well as My Brother In law , in life and dependedent on the government to keep him healthy and alive ..he also suffered from agent orange induced ailments ...but did not have the awsome insurance policy ..he had the government ...needless to say the diffference in treatment was third world for one VET and first rate for the other,.

The end result was the same ..they both died soon after being diagnosed , but one died with the best of care the other with ..to be polite ..mediocre at best and at times criminal ..care .

I am a living breathing witness to how the health system works when it is run by a government agency .

Privatize health care and treat it like education..its an investment in the general heath and welfare of the people of the USA and is COVERED as such under our constitution. So it can be SUBSIDISED by the government but should NEVER be administered by them .

The health care system ..and I am a PART of it ..in the United States is a disgrace as it is now constituted. We the people DESRERVE better from our leaders , and creating another bloated boondogle is NOT the answer.

You can't stick your head in the sand or hide behind principle ..the health care system is broken and it sucks and it is NOT fair..from prescription drugs to bloated HMO managment ..to the lack of reasonable regulation on lawsuits that are driving any sane doctor out of states without Tort reform ..leaving the People of those states with doctors desperate for a job ...not exactly how capatlist society should be working , is it ? The DEMAND exist but the supply has been driven away by bad laws and worse regulation.

Health care needs reform on ALL levels ..its no longer a question of philosophy ..Its a question of getting the damned job DONE .

 

[FoolKiller]

Fact check time

As an example: Australian researchers recently came up with a vaccine that prevents 70% of all cervical cancers. This research was done with heavy government sponsorship.
Drug companies in the US were not willing to put in the time and money into the research, because it was deemed too risky- that is, a profitable product may not come from it, so they instead put millions into advertizing and marketing drugs they already have in the market.
The Australian governement will make the vaccine available to all women aged 18-24 for free, and I am happy to contribute towards this through my taxes.
No doubt a US or European company will win the rights to distribute and produce the drug, selling it to the US for a nice, healthy profit. Unless the US government decides to subsidize the drug, the women in the US will have to fork out thousands each.

Well, this is obviously the HPV vaccine, which I heavily debated against US mandatory laws. Lets ask Wiki about this shall we:

The vaccine was developed in parallel by researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center, the University of Rochester, Queensland University in Australia, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute. In Europe, University of Rochester, University of Queensland and the US NCI all have controlling patent positions for the cervical cancer vaccine. In the US, both the NCI and the University of Queensland have important patent positions, while the dominant patent position awaits the outcome of a dispute between the University of Queensland and Georgetown University. In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first preventive HPV vaccine, marketed by Merck & Co. under the tradename Gardasil. This vaccine is now approved in over 70 countries worldwide. Early in 2007, GlaxoSmithKline filed for approval in the United States for a similar preventive HPV vaccine, known as Cervarix. In the European Union, GlaxoSmithKline filed the application for approval in March 2006. In June 2007 this vaccine was licenced in Australia.

Yep, Australians helped to develop this vaccine. However, it seems as if they did it with three US research institutions and it is already available in the US. If it isn't available in Australia yet this really does go against your claims because it means that our mostly privatized system has quicker access to these preventative measures. Heck, as another company is producing a second vaccine that means we have a choice of which one we want to take. If we so choose we can do the research and see which one may be better and more cost effective for ourselves.

Note: I am ignoring the usual debate about this vaccine because my feelings have been made well known through numerous rants.

 

[Omnis]

HAHAHA! Gardasil? That's been around for quite a while! Looks like FoolKiller pointed out the pwnage. Well done.

 

[Famine]

For healthcare in particular, advances in technical equipment, new drugs or surgical techniques will simply not cut down how many people are getting sick. Prevention is about the only way to cut down costs, and provide more care for more people.

But that would be contrary to the interests of a capitalist based system, would it not?
A capitalist system would want more sick people, not less.
A capitalist system would benefit from the greater demand, and have no interest in improving people's overall health.

...

A privatized healthcare system has no interest whatsoever in making everyone healthy- It would be out of business.
It has no interest in long term health advances- this would reduce its profits in the future.
It has no interest in life-saving vaccines that prevent serious illness- this would simply reduce its consumer base.
Companies by their very nature put profit before people. If a company is supposed to provide a vital service for people, it will put profit first, even if it is at the expense of the very people it is supposed to be 'serving'. The people it's actually serving aren't the customers- its the shareholders.

It's a wonder that so many private drug companies make so many cures for things really.

I was struck by this thought recently with the UK smoking ban. I thought "Companies like Nicorette [Pfizer] will make a killing - people will want to stop smoking because it's so inconvenient for them.". Then I thought "Hang on though... what will they do once everyone is cured? They'll be out of business - there'll be no-one left to cure."

Funny that they still do it though.

 

[ExigeEvan]

It's a wonder that so many private drug companies make so many cures for things really.

I was struck by this thought recently with the UK smoking ban. I thought "Companies like Nicorette [Pfizer] will make a killing - people will want to stop smoking because it's so inconvenient for them.". Then I thought "Hang on though... what will they do once everyone is cured? They'll be out of business - there'll be no-one left to cure."

Funny that they still do it though.

Perhaps that is why there is no nicotine replacement that doesn't require "will power" in order to help you quit

 

[FoolKiller]

Perhaps that is why there is no nicotine replacement that doesn't require "will power" in order to help you quit

The only way to do that is to replace the addiction with another addiction. That is why people who quit smoking suddenly gain weight or alcoholics start gambling. If you want to completely break any addiction you must use some form of will power to step away because a large part is psychological.

Things such as Nicorette help reduce the physical urge, making that will power easier to find.

 

[Danoff]

It's a wonder that so many private drug companies make so many cures for things really.

I was struck by this thought recently with the UK smoking ban. I thought "Companies like Nicorette [Pfizer] will make a killing - people will want to stop smoking because it's so inconvenient for them.". Then I thought "Hang on though... what will they do once everyone is cured? They'll be out of business - there'll be no-one left to cure."

Funny that they still do it though.

They don't really have a good market-based mechanism for maintaining demand. All they can do is tap into the temporary demand while it exists. Then when it's gone, they can close up shop and do something else. More likely they'll leverage a decent brand name into some other market before the first one dries up. If they try to do anything else they'll just end up losing the temporary market altogether.

However, they will go to the government to try to preserve demand. Such companies will probably lobby against smoking laws or cigarette taxes. If they thought they could keep it covered up they'd probably lobby against laws preventing cigarette companies from marketing to children or lobby against age limits altogether.

Another favorite game of people in that circumstance is to try to increase their market pool by claiming that competitors are making people sick and need to go through an expensive licensing process or that there needs to be additional regulation on companies selling the patch. That way, if they can position themselves on the review board they can help push their competition out of business. That's one of the ways big companies use government to push little guys out of the market.

 

[Famine]

They don't really have a good market-based mechanism for maintaining demand. All they can do is tap into the temporary demand while it exists. Then when it's gone, they can close up shop and do something else. More likely they'll leverage a decent brand name into some other market before the first one dries up. If they try to do anything else they'll just end up losing the temporary market altogether.

Well, it's Pfizer - makers of Viagra. So I'd be guessing that they'll make as much money as possible and, once the Nicorette brand is flailing, can it and use the profit to research the next drug for the next illness. There's always the next illness - and the money available to the people who can get the cure out first is mind-blowing.

Which, of course, drives R&D. Quick example of healing people not being contrary to free market economics.

 

[Gonz013]

Fact check time

Well, this is obviously the HPV vaccine, which I heavily debated against US mandatory laws.

The point was to compare how an important medical advance would be used in a capitalist model vs. a socialist model for providing healthcare.

In a capitalist model, you would have to pay for it, and only those who could afford it would get it. The long-term costs to a society in this scenario are significantly higher than they would be if the vaccine was offered for free to all women.

 

[Gonz013]

Interesting. He would deserve to get his healthcare paid for even though he can work and CHOOSES not to? So he literally takes my money to use for his physicals, prescriptions and operations but since he decided he's to good for most jobs that's OK? Gonz, are you serious?

Uh.. yeah. In the same way that a police officer will come to the rescue of a criminal that is being attacked, or a fire department will put out a burning business of someone that rips off their customers and doesn't pay tax.

I regard healthcare and education a vital service and a right, not a luxury or a privilige that should only be afforded to people who can afford it.
I regard it as something that should be provided by a society to all people who participate in it, just like all the other services provided: everyone contributes, everyone benefits when they need it.
Like I have pointed out before, it works great in many countries around the world.

FK has already hit a lot of this, but I want to throw my 2 cents in as well.

I refute your first point.

• -Less sickness= more productivity, less burden on health system

While that is true, how does free healthcare make people less sick?

'Free' healthcare allows people to get treatment at much earlier stages- which they would not get due to expense. In a nutshell: it allows greater prevention, and is available to everyone, not just those that can afford it.

My father had symptoms of possible heart trouble but didn't go to the doctor's for years when he had very GOOD health insurance. Then when he started to not be able to function, he went and found out he had several blocked arteries in his heart. It was all covered under his insurance(for the most part) but it would've been better if he would've gotten checked out back in say 1999. It could've been treated with drugs alone. But he didn't go to the doctor, why? Because he was too proud, stubborn, pigheaded take your pick. It had NOTHING to do with the cost of the visits or procedures. It was pure choice. I bet almost everyone in this thread knows someone with a similar experience.

That's a separate issue. He should have gone when he first had problems.
In a good socialised health system, your father would not have needed insurance, and he could have gone in '99 if he wanted to.

Do you really think that if everyone knew it was free to go to the doctor they wouldn't just do whatever they wanted, get a procedure/drug to fix what's wrong and keep on going?

I don't know anyone that decides to get sick just because they think it can be easily taken care of later by going to the doctor.
Smokers an obese people are getting sick regardless of wether there is treatment out there to 'save' them or not.
Indeed, they keep getting sick even when they are told that there won't be hope for treatment, that they will simply get sicker and die younger- that's their stupid choice.

Also, I don't think you can prove that more education equals less crime. Less crimes against humanity maybe. Such as rape, murder, assault and the like. Is that what you meant?

No. I mean More education = Less poverty = Less crime.
There is a clear causative correlation between all three. A person with a good education is much more likely to earn better money/ have more options/ think of more options to get them out of poverty/ avoid crime/ be more innovative and entrepeneurial.

A (good) free health and education system for all effectively lifts the 'bottom' up higher. If even the lowest of the low (socio-politically speaking) has good health and education, the entire society is better off than one that has people at the bottom who can't read/ can't get treatment for something that stops them from working. These people at the very bottom are the most likely to break into your house and rob you, most likely to get hooked on drugs, the least likely to get good jobs etc. Which society would you rather live in?

As FK said. What is fair contribution?

That's up for debate. Different countries do it differently.
Some would consider a % of all income as fair.

If it was possible, perhaps a flat levy for all people would be considered fair.
I guess it depends on how big that levy is.

No, I'm not selfish or heartless. I give a good portion of my salary to various charities and other non-profit organizations. But that's my choice, nobody is forcing me into that.

That's great, but its a separate issue.

What you're saying on the other hand is that I HAVE to pay for Danoff's treatments(Sorry Dan, but I know you're in California and I'm in Maryland-3000 miles away-so it makes a good example). And that it benefits me somehow? Even though Danoff has been ignoring the symptoms for years and now needs a major organ transplant that will be 20- 50 times as expensive then the treatment if he would have went to the doctor when the symptoms first occurred?

Sure, why not? He would be doing the same for you in return if you needed medical treatment. Do Danoff's tax dollars not benefit you in any way currently?
Are you not part of the same society?
Where do you draw the lines? I would suggest national political boundaries are currently the best.
And you DO have a choice, if you don't like it, if you don't want to contribute to your society, then get out, go live somewhere else. Contrary to what Danoff says, no-one is really holding a gun to your head.
Your taxes are not forcibly taken from you. In fact, taxes are largely voluntarily administered- its very eazy to cheat on your taxes and not get caught.
Living in the US, you are fortunate enough to have a real choice. There are plenty of people around the world that would get shot trying to cross a border to their neighbouring country. As a US citizen, it would be very easy for you to go to many other countries- you'd be welcome here for instance.

Also, what about the people that die and barely used any health benefits? Do they get a refund at death? Of course not. So there you go Gonz, it's theft. I really and truly understand your basis for what you think. And my heart agrees with you. But the sheer fact of the matter is that you're saying the government should be at the best Robin Hood and at the worst Carl Marx.

No, all I'm advocating is that health be treated like other vital services, which you seem to have no trouble paying taxes for. eg. police, army, infrastructure etc. Why is it not theft to pay for say, police, but it is to pay for hospitals?

That simply shouldn't fly in a democratic republic with a free enterprise based economy.

It flies very well at the moment.
The US is only a 'free market' when it is convenient for its own interests. It reverts to socialist-like subsidies whenever free market capitalism doesn't suit it.
For instance, the US subsidises much of its farming and agriculture because otherwise, it could not compete against others in an open marketplace.
At the same time, it tries to force other countries to open up their markets completely, effectively giving itself an unfair advantage.

 

[Gonz013]

"The unfortunate reality it that in the real world, healthcare and education are two services that simply do not benefit from a capitalist model.
If they did, there would be many examples all around the world. As it is, there are none. The best fit for providing healthcare is a socialist model." -Gonz013

^ This is not a real argument. But I feel it necessary to say that I don’t feel it necessary to respond.

It is THE argument. I presented a claim and backed it up with evidence.

It's all about what model is most likely to provide the best possible healthcare system is it not?

Maybe it's not a real argument to you because it defeats what you are advocating, or you simply do not like the reality of the situation.
How convenient that you simply ignore anything that does not align with your idealized views.

The world-wide experience is that the best healthcare systems... why am I repeating myself? Just look at my quote again.

You can keep on ranting about basic economic principles that work perfectly in a vaccum.

I have to get back to the real world...

I’ll never benefit from this vaccine, and my wife won’t either. But our tax dollars would be used to force others (many of whom will choose a lifestyle that will prevent them from benefiting from the vaccine) to be vaccinated.

Your entire society will benefit. Other loved ones/ friends might benefit.
You WILL benefit- just not directly or obviously.

If it were up to me, my tax dollars would never be used to research an HPV vaccine. Same for HIV. And don’t get me started on stem cells. Sure, these things can be researched, but it should be researched for the people who are willing to pay for it. Not funded by the people who will never benfit.

With your attitude, we would never advance significantly. The greatest leaps in humanity are often made in ventures that have no foreseeable benefits/ returns. Why bother sailing to the ends of the earth if we don't know that anything is out there?

How do you know you will never benefit from stem cell research?

Can you see into the future?

Tell me... I'm dying to know, was John Titor right?

 

[Danoff]

It is THE argument. I presented a claim and backed it up with evidence.

It's all about what model is most likely to provide the best possible healthcare system is it not?

Maybe it's not a real argument to you because it defeats what you are advocating, or you simply do not like the reality of the situation.
How convenient that you simply ignore anything that does not align with your idealized views.

It's simply not logically sound - it has nothing to do with my views. You can't say that it is not possible that a capitalist model is the best fit for healthcare when one has not been honestly tried (that I know of) in modern society (in the past it was tried with great success). That's why it's a non-argument. It simply doesn't follow.

Your entire society will benefit. Other loved ones/ friends might benefit.
You WILL benefit- just not directly or obviously.

or at all. Fair is getting what you paid for, not paying for what you won't get.

With your attitude, we would never advance significantly. The greatest leaps in humanity are often made in ventures that have no foreseeable benefits/ returns. Why bother sailing to the ends of the earth if we don't know that anything is out there?

It's funny that you should say that while advocating an innovation stifling model for healthcare.

I addressed this issue - you overlooked it. I do think that some government research is valid. Areas that have a long time horizon and have some chance of vast returns, but are not guaranteed, are not areas that private organizations typically investigate well. In those areas I think government research makes sense - areas like space travel, advanced medical research, lofty fields like particle physics.

How do you know you will never benefit from stem cell research?

When did I say that?

 

[Sage]

Maybe it's not a real argument to you because it defeats what you are advocating, or you simply do not like the reality of the situation.

No, Dan was entirely right in saying that that wasn’t a real argument. That quoted part is quite literally a non sequitur. Read what you wrote very carefully, and you should see the logical fallacy in it.

 

[Gonz013]

No, Dan was entirely right in saying that that wasn’t a real argument. That quoted part is quite literally a non sequitur. Read what you wrote very carefully, and you should see the logical fallacy in it.

1.I'm advocating that healthcare is best provided by a socialist model.
-I have given as evidence that the best healthcare sytems in the world are currently provided in this way.

Is the logical fallacy here? that's just fact.

2.I'm advocating that healthcare not be provided using a capitalist model.
-There are currently no capitalist based healthcare systems that I know of.

Or maybe its here, in point 2? That looks like fact too.

And further to these:

-The fact that there are none in any OECD countries proves it is not a realistic/ viable/ logical/ desirable/ workable option. (due to all the reasons previously posted)

-The fact is that people (and economies) in socialist democracies benefit greatly from 'free' healthcare. [again, refer to previous posts eg. car industry example from Canada. BTW- wouldn't Chrysler be better off if they didn't have to provide health plans?]

-The fact is that very often, when services such as these are privatised: costs go up, services down. This is a common and persistent trend with a lot of privatisation, particularly in health and education. So much so, that when people in socialist democracies are offered privatisation, they rally against it, due to their previous negative experiences.

-If a capitalist model was viable, there would be tens, if not hundreds of examples of it operating all around the world.

All it would take was for just one solitary capitalist based model to perform better than the socialist ones, and I guarantee there would be a lot of people wanting to jump on board and advocate to do the same.

So again, where's the logical fallacy?

 

[Famine]

The point was to compare how an important medical advance would be used in a capitalist model vs. a socialist model for providing healthcare.

In a capitalist model, you would have to pay for it, and only those who could afford it would get it. The long-term costs to a society in this scenario are significantly higher than they would be if the vaccine was paid for through taxation at over twice the rate of elective medical insurance by all taxpaying women and men.

Interestingly, the Capitalist system would also allow for people to investigate the product and think "Hang on... that's a bit funny. There's no causal link between any virus and any cancer, but they're offering a vaccine against cancer?" or "But that's only one type of cancer amongst thousands, and it seems like an awful high failure rate (3 in 10)." and opt out of it.

[/Molecular Biologist]

 

[Omnis]

1.I'm advocating that healthcare is best provided by a socialist model.
-I have given as evidence that the best healthcare sytems in the world are currently provided in this way.

Is the logical fallacy here? that's just fact.

2.I'm advocating that healthcare not be provided using a capitalist model.
-There are currently no capitalist based healthcare systems that I know of.

Or maybe its here, in point 2? That looks like fact too.

1. You are wrong. Your evidence that the best healthcare systems are socialist has no evidence to substantiate itself.

2. Such is the beauty of private capitalist healthcare... It is none of your business to know of how people choose their treatment and how they fund it. Basically, you're dismissing capitalist healthcare based on sheer ignorance. "Because I don't fully understand Option A, Option B must be the better choice."

Get real, dude.

 

[FoolKiller]

The point was to compare how an important medical advance would be used in a capitalist model vs. a socialist model for providing healthcare.

In a capitalist model, you would have to pay for it, and only those who could afford it would get it. The long-term costs to a society in this scenario are significantly higher than they would be if the vaccine was offered for free to all women.

Let's assume that this vaccine actually stops cervical cancer. If your comments are correct that Australia is getting ready to have access to the drug and America already has it that means that one year's worth of future American women cervical cancer patients have the ability to be saved while thousands of Australian women still don't have access and will pass the age of effectiveness.

Your "free" system just cost you thousands of lives. How free is that again?

And trust me, if an American can't afford $60 spread out over three months, and some hospitals even offering payment plans, then they have bigger problems than healthcare woes.

Why bother sailing to the ends of the earth if we don't know that anything is out there?

To take this and put it to a real-life example - it was to open better trade routes and make more money. The fact that a continent was in the way didn't matter, because that isn't why Columbus set out.

That is right, the evil, capitalist America was discovered because a merchant wanted to find a way to make more money. How fitting is that?

 

[Danoff]

1.I'm advocating that healthcare is best provided by a socialist model.
-I have given as evidence that the best healthcare sytems in the world are currently provided in this way.
Is the logical fallacy here? that's just fact.

I have poked holes in the evidence, but since I have no purely capitalist examples to point to - it makes it difficult to supply empirical evidence.

It is a fact that you argue that. It is not fact that you're right in your assertion. But no logical fallacy yet either.

2.I'm advocating that healthcare not be provided using a capitalist model.
-There are currently no capitalist based healthcare systems that I know of.

Facts so far. Yes, you are advocating that. And yes, I know of no purely capitalist healthcare system. No logical fallacy yet.

-The fact that there are none in any OECD countries proves it is not a realistic/ viable/ logical/ desirable/ workable option. (due to all the reasons previously posted)

Boom! Logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

-The fact is that people (and economies) in socialist democracies benefit greatly from 'free' healthcare. [again, refer to previous posts eg. car industry example from Canada. BTW- wouldn't Chrysler be better off if they didn't have to provide health plans?]

Don't see how you can claim this when you have no capitalist system to compare against. All we can argue about is shades of grey. Your shade is greyer than my shade - and so we can discuss what differences that makes. But there are flaws in that kind of discussion.

-The fact is that very often, when services such as these are privatised: costs go up, services down.

Yea you really haven't established that. You've claimed it multiple times. That argument contradicts hundreds of years of established economics. And, quite simply, it doesn't make sense that it should work that way.

But cost is a tricky thing. Are we talking about cost to you? Or cost to society. Because the overall cost of the system might be greater even though you pay very little.

...when people in socialist democracies are offered privatisation, they rally against it, due to their previous negative experiences.

They rally against it because the majority of people like having things supplied to them by the minority. Nobody is going to vote that the rich guy down the street should STOP paying for his stuff.

-If a capitalist model was viable, there would be tens, if not hundreds of examples of it operating all around the world.

All it would take was for just one solitary capitalist based model to perform better than the socialist ones, and I guarantee there would be a lot of people wanting to jump on board and advocate to do the same.

Boom! Same logical fallacy as earlier.

I can think of many reasons why this is not the case, not the least of which is my response to your previous quote.

That is right, the evil, capitalist America was discovered because a merchant wanted to find a way to make more money. How fitting is that?

I hadn't thought to go that route. Nicely played sir 👍

 

[Swift]

First, sorry for the radically late reply.

Uh.. yeah. In the same way that a police officer will come to the rescue of a criminal that is being attacked, or a fire department will put out a burning business of someone that rips off their customers and doesn't pay tax.

Here's the difference. The criminal is still going to be arrested and put in prison. The burning building being put out is a direct benifit to the surrounding buildings and homes. On paper as well as practically it makes sense to have law enforcement and fire depts for everyone.

I regard healthcare and education a vital service and a right, not a luxury or a privilige that should only be afforded to people who can afford it.
I regard it as something that should be provided by a society to all people who participate in it, just like all the other services provided: everyone contributes, everyone benefits when they need it.
Like I have pointed out before, it works great in many countries around the world.

Are education and healthcare needed to survive?

Show me a country that isn't heavily taxes and/or financially strained by the universal healthcare system please.

'Free' healthcare allows people to get treatment at much earlier stages- which they would not get due to expense. In a nutshell: it allows greater prevention, and is available to everyone, not just those that can afford it.

The hundreds of millions of people that DO have insurance DON'T got to see the doctor during earlier stages on a regular basis. So, why would they do it when it's "free"?

That's a separate issue. He should have gone when he first had problems.
In a good socialised health system, your father would not have needed insurance, and he could have gone in '99 if he wanted to.

No, it actually goes to prove that just because healthcare is readily available it doesn't mean people will take advantage of it. "You can lead a horse to water..."

I don't know anyone that decides to get sick just because they think it can be easily taken care of later by going to the doctor.
Smokers an obese people are getting sick regardless of wether there is treatment out there to 'save' them or not.
Indeed, they keep getting sick even when they are told that there won't be hope for treatment, that they will simply get sicker and die younger- that's their stupid choice.

True, but people that don't smoke and aren't obese make the same choice all the time. People with high blood pressure continue to eat salty foods. Diabetics continue to eat sugar, people with liver problems continue to drink, etc... How is it remotely fair to take from me for the poor health choices of others?

No. I mean More education = Less poverty = Less crime.
There is a clear causative correlation between all three. A person with a good education is much more likely to earn better money/ have more options/ think of more options to get them out of poverty/ avoid crime/ be more innovative and entrepeneurial.

Can you prove this with any statistics? Also, how does education effect healthcare?

A (good) free health and education system for all effectively lifts the 'bottom' up higher. If even the lowest of the low (socio-politically speaking) has good health and education, the entire society is better off than one that has people at the bottom who can't read/ can't get treatment for something that stops them from working. These people at the very bottom are the most likely to break into your house and rob you, most likely to get hooked on drugs, the least likely to get good jobs etc. Which society would you rather live in?

Why is it my job to educate and treat everyone again? Especially those that don't want the treatment and/or education? I'm talking on a government level here, not personal.

That's up for debate. Different countries do it differently.
Some would consider a % of all income as fair.

If it was possible, perhaps a flat levy for all people would be considered fair.
I guess it depends on how big that levy is.

Another huge flaw in the system. So, as healthcare costs go up, the percentage goes up with it? Even God said 10% of your income over 3,000 years ago and with all the inflation and everything it STILL is 10% of your income. Amazing huh?

That's great, but its a separate issue.

No, that is exactly the issue the Danoff, FK and myself are talking about. You literally want the government to steal from me to pay for some guys healthcare that simply chooses not to work. That's what you're advocating, correct?

Sure, why not? He would be doing the same for you in return if you needed medical treatment. Do Danoff's tax dollars not benefit you in any way currently?
Are you not part of the same society?
Where do you draw the lines? I would suggest national political boundaries are currently the best.
And you DO have a choice, if you don't like it, if you don't want to contribute to your society, then get out, go live somewhere else. Contrary to what Danoff says, no-one is really holding a gun to your head.
Your taxes are not forcibly taken from you. In fact, taxes are largely voluntarily administered- its very eazy to cheat on your taxes and not get caught.
Living in the US, you are fortunate enough to have a real choice. There are plenty of people around the world that would get shot trying to cross a border to their neighbouring country. As a US citizen, it would be very easy for you to go to many other countries- you'd be welcome here for instance.

You're joking right? It's "easy" to cheat on taxes. Give me a break. How do you think they finally convicted Al Capone? Tax evasion! And you know he had the best lawyers and all that money could buy.

Yes, we are FORCED to pay taxes whether we like them or not. There is no choice at all if we are a citizen of this country and living on American soil. You pay or go to jail. How is that not forcing?

Anyway, to the original point. Danoff is a part of my country, but not my community. There is no benifit for me to have my money stolen from me to pay for his procedure. None. Want proof? There have been over 150 murders in Baltimore, MD this year alone. Did I know any of them? No. Did it effect my daily life? No. Am I sad to hear about it and wish it would stop. Certainly. But taking more money from me isn't going to solve the problem.

No, all I'm advocating is that health be treated like other vital services, which you seem to have no trouble paying taxes for. eg. police, army, infrastructure etc. Why is it not theft to pay for say, police, but it is to pay for hospitals?

I have LOTS of trouble paying taxes. I despise paying taxes. I totally hate it. The only thing I should pay taxes for, on a national level, is defense and national security and infrastructure. On a state level, local law enforcement and other emergency systems. On a local level, helping people born with traumatic challenges like CP, mental retardation, missing limbs, etc. That's it! I don't want to have my money taken from me for welfare programs, schools and all the rest of the stupid junk politicians have thrown into the mix. Healthcare is not a vital service. It is a luxury of the times that we live in. If healthcare was a right and all this, how did we get to where we are without it? Did people not get sick before? I know that's a hyperbole, but I'm somewhat serious when I ask that.

It flies very well at the moment.
The US is only a 'free market' when it is convenient for its own interests. It reverts to socialist-like subsidies whenever free market capitalism doesn't suit it.
For instance, the US subsidises much of its farming and agriculture because otherwise, it could not compete against others in an open marketplace.
At the same time, it tries to force other countries to open up their markets completely, effectively giving itself an unfair advantage.

I'm sorry, did I post somewhere that I advocated agricultural subsidies? The USA at it's roots and early stages of growth was almost entirely free market. But people's ignorance and politicians greed have changed that over the years.

Also, who would chose what citizens would qualify for what care? How many different times could the same procedure be performed? What would the criteria be for someone to qualify for a liver transplant for example? I do NOT want the government making healthcare decisions for me. They're bad enough at making other decisions, the last thing I need is them telling my doctor what he can't and can't do.

 

[ledhed]

The US is only a 'free market' when it is convenient for its own interests. It reverts to socialist-like subsidies whenever free market capitalism doesn't suit it.
For instance, the US subsidises much of its farming and agriculture because otherwise, it could not compete against others in an open marketplace.
At the same time, it tries to force other countries to open up their markets completely, effectively giving itself an unfair advantage.

This is false . actually most of the post is distorted and the opinion of the person posting it and not fact .

Farm subsidies are just the most galaring area ..and show the bias/ agenda of the poster , its a distorted veiw that twist the facts to fit this persons personal political leaning.

There are MANY reasons for farm subsidies and MOST lean towards National Security and Guaranteeing a Food supply in a time of crisis . You actually have to take take each " subsidy " individually for each type of produce , and examine it to come to a rational conclusion as to its worth / need / intent .
You can't throw a " blanket " over subsidies " and argue with any credibility .
US food products are subsidised in a range from 0-100 , it depends on the segment and the HISTORY behind the subsidy .

You can have a thread and a worth while discussion on this point/ subject alone.

The US has the best availaible Health Care in the world ..at issue is making it available at a price all US citenzens can afford and how to go about doing this.

SOCIALIZING or having the Government run Health Care is not the way . Nor is giving it away for free.....

Examine the Governments past performance vs any PRIVATE run enterprise and a rational person can see this .

FEMA = National Health care .

 

[Danoff]

The US has the best availaible Health Care in the world ..at issue is making it available at a price all US citenzens can afford and how to go about doing this.

Not possible. There will always be someone with zero dollars. At issue is what system is the most efficient and fair. Whether or not everyone can afford whatever health care they want is pointless to consider.

 

[V1P3R]

Watching SICKO and without going though all 5 pages... I want to move to Canada. Well move somewhere other than the US.

I also feel sick...

 

[Famine]

I also feel sick...

Yeah, Michael Moore has that effect on people.

 

[V1P3R]

You know... It's not so much Micheal Moore... I know he's subjective but that's not the way I look at it. It's that he does have some good points regardless. This movie basically says, America is selfish. Nobody does anything for others, me me me. Every where else is for the good of the WHOLE society. The problem with here is that wouldn't happen because nobody trusts anyone and things they should have to give anyone the time of day, it's their own damn fault.

Question, Why is there so many people that AREN'T overweight everywhere else? And hell everywhere else the definition of "living comfortably" is no where close to even our middle class people I bet.

These are all things I've been talking about here time and time again for a long while.

Toward the end of the film they say their governments are afraid of the people speaking out where as here the people are afraid of speaking out about the government.

I don't think these things can be denied about US vs the World no?

 

[Famine]

You know... It's not so much Micheal Moore... I know he's subjective but that's not the way I look at it. It's that he does have some good points regardless. This movie basically says, America is selfish. Nobody does anything for others, me me me. Every where else is for the good of the WHOLE society. The problem with here is that wouldn't happen because nobody trusts anyone and things they should have to give anyone the time of day, it's their own damn fault.

Question, Why is there so many people that AREN'T overweight everywhere else? And hell everywhere else the definition of "living comfortably" is no where close to even our middle class people I bet.

These are all things I've been talking about here time and time again for a long while.

Toward the end of the film they say their governments are afraid of the people speaking out where as here the people are afraid of speaking out about the government.

I don't think these things can be denied about US vs the World no?

Do you know what the country with the highest rate of obese adults is? It isn't the USA...

Why shouldn't people who can afford to choose to eat well? I don't get why this is a problem.

 

[V1P3R]

Why do people feel the need to keep eatting even after they are full?
Why do people feel they need or have to have cable?
Why do people feel they need to have that much money?

As for your question... because it makes health care that much more of a problem when if it was prevented before hand then we wouldn't need as much health care for common problems.

Why do I get the feeling this has already been talked about and is going to be proved wrong?

 

[Famine]

Why do people feel the need to keep eatting even after they are full?

Because they want to.

Should I eat salmon tonight, or must I have tofu?

Why do people feel they need or have to have cable?

Because they want to.

Should I watch the television I choose to, or just listen to the radio? Mind you, why do I feel the need to have a radio?

Why do people feel they need to have that much money?

What an utterly absurd question.

As for your question... because it makes health care that much more of a problem when if it was prevented before hand then we wouldn't need as much health care for common problems.

If you have a system whereby people are paying for their own healthcare, why is that even an issue?

I'd understand your point partly if you lived in a society where healthcare was free for all and loaded by people whose lifestyle choices made them more susceptible to certain disorders. But you don't - and I do.

Why do I get the feeling this has already been talked about and is going to be proved wrong?

It probably has, but it's nonsensical to think that people should be stopped from enjoying the fruits of their labour.

 

[Azuremen]

Micheal Moore is an idiot... no wait, rather a genius of presenting some so lopsided as to make it seem like the only option.

V1P3R, you argument holds virtually no water, and borders, quite literally, on communist mindset. There are problems in the "universal healtcare" systems around the world, Moore just doesn't show that.

 

[arora]

Let me get this straight, Micheal Moore is calling Americans fat and greedy?...... ..Thats a good one...

He is more then welcome to go back to Canada and peddle his movies there, although I doubt he'd make the millions that he does here

On a more serious note; I wonder if he uses the 'free' healthcare system in Canada or chooses to pay for some privite treatment in the U.S. What a hypocrit.