[John Spartan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and to econophile, like i said, i do not believe that education is an absolute human right. some people just don't belong in college. everyone requires and needs health care.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but is healthcare the only human right? What specific steps should the government take to improve healthcare?

[/ QUOTE ]

health care and food and shelter are the three human rights in my opinion. everyone has the right to have access to health care, enough nutritious food to survive, and a roof over their head so they don't die of exposure. sorry if these ideas are so revolutionary. i don't believe in equal outcome. i believe if someone has 100 million bucks and 10 mansions good for them. not everyone needs to have that. but people need to be able to survive.

the govt can improve health care in ways that i have alreayd mentioned:

some quotes of mine:

"Bottom line, even if private health insurance companies are not banned in the US, they need to be heavily regulated at least. A lot of private insurance companies will routinely deny valid claims just to make a few extra bucks on the bottom line. These companies need to be investigated and heavily fined. We need more proactive federal and state justice systems.

And I am by no means a huge liberal. I am a registered Republican who sees the value of a single payer system. I do not believe that everything is a right, for example, I don't believe that education is a human right. But health care certainly is because it is the central to the right to life. "

"FWIW, I do not think a single payer system is totally required. I think that what we want could be accomplished with heavier regulation of the private industry(to cut down drastically on the level of denied valid claims) and some kind of voucher system for people who have trouble affording health care to be able to purchase private plans. People below a certain income level would get the full amount, people above that amount but below the next level would get it partially subsidized. I think this might work because of the 40 million or so without health insurance, a huge chunk of them choose not to carry health insurance(young people gambling), and they should be forced to buy a plan, set up similar to the federal employee benefit system where you get to pick from a bunch. Structure it similar to Medicare Choice but without the unfunded liabilities."

"You can't use the freer market, more competition argument with regard to our health care system becuase what we basically have in our semi private health care system is an oligarchy. The HMO act passed by Congress in the early 70s helped create this phenomenon, and as a result, we now have the worst of both worlds, a for profit system that is terribly inefficient and bogged down in bureuacracy. The irony of it all is that a single payer system, financed through the federal government, would actually be more efficient and less bureaucratic. Doctors would also find it a lot easier to only have to file a form to ONE payer, the fed government through a regional office, instead of having to hire 3 or 4 people JUST to deal with all the insurance paperwork like they do now.


And people who compare our system to that of Britain's, as I have seen people do, are being disingenuous. In Britain, the National Health Service is both financed and run by the government. In a single payer health care system like the one proposed by Moore and other people, this would not be the case. The system would be financed by federal and possibly state governments, but doctors would not be employed by the state and hospitals would not be state entities like is the case for both in the UK.

I do agree with whoever said that we need to charge unhealthy people more to offset the costs. Health insurance companies charge smokers more for health insurance but they can't really charge an obese person more. That is ridiculous. "

"
Emperor, I would rather have people have to wait a few months for elective non-medically necessary surgery than have people dying of cancer or other diseases because they don't have the money for treatment and don't have insurance. The greed displayed in this thread is astounding.

I see nothing wrong with prioritizing medical treatment.

YES people can go to the ER but they don't have to treat for transplants, cancer treatment, or anything non-emergency.

And no most orthopedists in the US wil not take cash. only insurance.

And you guys keep ignoring the fact that plenty of people in this country who DO have insurance are still getting [censored] up the ass by those companies. The insurance companies will regularly deny valid claims to add to their bottom line and many people cannot afford a lawyer to go after them for this and force them to pay. It's called BAD FAITH INSURANCE and it is a huge concern.

And you have no room to talk Emperor. You tried to deny the fact that administrative costs are much higher in the US than Canada.

And then there's all the people who are "under insured", which means that their cap on their insurance payment is so low that if they need cancer treatment or expensive tests or a long hospital stay, they can still end up getting the shaft to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. "

Basically, econophile, I am open to discussing plans to insure everyone. I don't want to waste time and energy debating the stupid taxation is theft argument put forward by people with no ideas and only emotion to contribute. I deal in facts, not platitudes.