Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, don't argue or consider, just ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were your arugment considerable, I would consider it.

As it is, somehow saying that we're no longer going to pay doctors because we're entitled to them is maybe a bit hyperbolic, but pretty much true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're in favor of slavery?

Also, has it *always* been a basic human right? Or is this a recent development?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you equate making sure that health care is available to slavery, then yes.

If you're not retarded, then no.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do we know which people are obligated to become doctors? Oh btw your solution is stop paying doctors for their services, since you're already entitled to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you're gonna have this entire forum on ignore in no time with that kind of attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I just realize that to discuss anything who thinks that a national health care system is slavery is a waste of time. And the world series was on. Damn Rockies.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Is there a large amount of doctors that will suddenly do something else because of....I don't even know, some random reason that makes sense in your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting paid less and having to work for someone else instead of yourself are "some random reason"?

Anyway, yes.

UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle698039.ece

Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/...-shortage.html

Australia
http://www.australiannews.net/story/288017

Ireland, Norway, Sweden and France

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7240/962/b

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
We all have a responsibility to each other. That has nothing to do with slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only have a responsibility to myself and my family. Forcing me to be responsible for others is slavery. I would certainly never try to force you or anyone else to be responsible for anyone other than you or your family. This is because slavery is immoral and disgusting and I will not support it or tolerate it.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is there a large amount of doctors that will suddenly do something else because of....I don't even know, some random reason that makes sense in your head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting paid less and having to work for someone else instead of yourself are "some random reason"?

Anyway, yes.

UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle698039.ece

Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/...-shortage.html

Australia
http://www.australiannews.net/story/288017

Ireland, Norway, Sweden and France

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7240/962/b

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you get it? TomVeil does not agree with these articles!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this entitlement come from?

And if it is an entitlement, who is obligated to provide it?

If every doctor in my town decides to retire at the same time, are my rights violated?

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, you wouldn't have a problem telling someone with an uninsurable precondition that would you? Because you got yours, and that's all that matters. Or a child. Or a senior. But that's not who you're talking to when you make these "arguments," is it? It's everybody else, the people you need to convince of your point of view, because you know that you can't change minds and influence people by essentially saying "I don't care about you, or my neighbors or friends or even my own family because I'VE GOT MINE." No sane person is going to buy that, because it's cruel, selfish and downright inhuman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman, with a side order of ad hominem. Since I disagree with your tactics for accomplishing X, you try to frame me as an opponent of X.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What's dangerous is reckless disregard for other human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

More of the same. Since you don't like my particular tactic for provision of health care for other people, you must hate other people.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
All these things got cheaper because of technology. Medical costs go UP because of technology. Amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, medical costs go DOWN because of technology, too - if you look at costs for one fixed procedure.

An MRI, for example, is much more affordable (in inflation-adjusted terms) than it was in the 1970's.

Ultrasound machines used to require an entire room full of equipment. Now they fit in a briefcase, literally, and are more precise to boot. All at lower prices.

Now, when costs decrease, consumption increases.

I work in the computer industry. Both hardware and software is incredibly cheap compared to what it was in the past. Yet, we're making more money. Computing costs have gone up in the aggregate because consumption has increased more - a LOT more than prices have decreased due to technology. And prices have dropped a LOT. Just look at what you can get today from dell for $400. The price drops are even more dramatic in the datacenter space where I work - multi-million-dollar machines are being replaced every day with $1000 parts. Software that cost as much or more than the hardware is being replaced with FREE software. And yet, my customers are spending MORE. And loving it.

People consume a LOT more "health care" than they did years ago. So of course, aggregate costs are higher.

If you want to "control costs" then the solution is simple - consume less. Dont have uncessary tests run. Don't take antiboitics when you have a viral infection.

The incentives are currently out of whack, and so people don't have any motivation to consume less.

A big part of the reason these incentives are screwed up is government intervention.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I only have a handful of things to add to this thread. Like an idiot I got myself dragged into this debate the other day and I really don't feel the need to engage except for this post. The upshot is I learned two things from the other thread:

1. National Health Care is practically inevitable in the next 4 years. The conversation we should be having isn't whether or not to do it but about the best way to do it. Therefore...

2. Having a conversation about it with people who don't even like the existence of the government let alone recognize the need for government intervention in many facets of society is completely pointless. They will continue to believe that everything private is necessarily good and everything public necessarily bad and resist the concepts of complexity or nuance. Not going to convince them of anything, ever. Oh the other hand, watching the red faced, stomping childish tantrums they throw about "their" money and "socialism" is enormously entertaining. Moving on.

I read through this entire thread. I don't know what I was expecting but there was ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. The most staggering this was not what the crazies say; their responses and "arguments" are all standard issue reactionary drivel. What stunned me was what the proponents of health care didn't say:

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care. We currently have a system where millions of people do not get care. Private health care will never address this problem because it's not in their interest to.

Of course, everyone's talking about efficiency and making attacks on other country's systems and so forth instead of addressing this point, the most important point. And that makes sense given the people driving the discussion. It's in the wingnuts interest to talk about efficiency and waiting lists and all that completely irrelevant crap. If they actually addressed the real question, the right to care, then they would have to justify a viewpoint that denies people basic human rights.

But then again, you wouldn't have a problem telling someone with an uninsurable precondition that would you? Because you got yours, and that's all that matters. Or a child. Or a senior. But that's not who you're talking to when you make these "arguments," is it? It's everybody else, the people you need to convince of your point of view, because you know that you can't change minds and influence people by essentially saying "I don't care about you, or my neighbors or friends or even my own family because I'VE GOT MINE." No sane person is going to buy that, because it's cruel, selfish and downright inhuman.

That's why you're a teeny, tiny marginalized minority and always will be. Other people are better than that. Cheers to the eternal 5 Percenters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping someone would mention that argument. Its a pretty hilarious one, the whole "health care is a right" thing. How can someone be ENTITLED to services provided by another human being? This is by far the most untenable position among those who support socialized health care.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Health care is a basic human right. As such, everyone is entitled to care.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're in favor of slavery?

Also, has it *always* been a basic human right? Or is this a recent development?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you equate making sure that health care is available to slavery, then yes.

If you're not retarded, then no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not EQUATING it to slavery. It IS slavery. How can you have health care without health care providers? And how can you be ENTITLED and have a RIGHT to my labor? On what planet is that NOT slavery? Because you pay me? Why bother paying me, you are ENTITLED to my labor.