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

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Serious question.

What do you call it when you believe you are entitled to the labor of other human beings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I not paying for their services? Isn't that a contract?

[/ QUOTE ]

Slaves were given food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. Their masters paid for all those things. Is that a contract?

What if they don't want to provide you their labor? What are you suggesting be done, since you are "entitled" to their labor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they won't become doctors?

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.

Are there huge doctor shortages in countries where universal health care exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is going to force the government to do a good job of providing healthcare and avoid wasting money if it doesn't have to compete with anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're called elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. The free market holds billions of elections every day, and nobody is forced to live with the winner-take-all choice of 15% of the populace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny, because by saying "elections" he is essentially admitting that he really DOES think the free market is the best solution, he just favors the most tortuous, inefficent, coercive form of the "free" market imaginable, governmental elections. If he were truly an opponent of free market regulation of health care, he should have answered the question "There is no reason but they will do it anyway" or something like that. Giving an answer, any answer at all, to what will force governments to compete to keep costs down is admitting defeat.

[vhawk01]

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

It would make sense that increasing the efficency of the system would make it better. Are costs staying down in countries that do not have universal health care? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't say. There are no other countries comparable to the US that don't have universal care. If that doesn't put things in perspective, I don't know what can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you use this argument if all countries "comparable to the US" endorsed slavery as well? If not, WTF are you saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to try and be respectful. Saying people are entitled to care, and therefore doctors are enslaved, is absolutely retarded.

I tried.

There is nothing inherent in the idea of a social entitlement that says people should not be compensated for their labor. Quite the opposite, progressives believe that everyone should be fairly compensated. Working for the government is not slavery.

This is so typical. I understand where you're coming from, it's just childish. You have what you need, and you have no responsibility to anybody else. That's just wrong. We all have a responsibility to each other. That has nothing to do with slavery.

Anther thing, arguing by analogy isn't valid. Stop it. Abstractly express your point like a halfway intelligent human being. That's a good test for whether or not something makes sense. If you can say it without using an analogy it's retarded. Use that before you say anything. Somehow I suspect if you actually did this I wouldn't hear a response.

EDIT: Also, there is no argument in my "can't say" post. It is a literal fact that no other developed nation on earth is stupid enough to deprive millions of their own citizens of health care. There are no examples to shed light on the OP's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so it is completely trivial and meaningless to say that health care is a basic human right and that all are entitled to health care. Good to know.

The strength behind being ENTITLED to something is what happens when no one wants to sell it to you. What happens if no doctors want to sell you health care? What happens when the rubber meets the road? If this will never happen (which I will assume is going to be your argument) then it is trivial and meaningless to claim that anyone is entitled to health care. They aren't entitled to it, they just buy it.

What are you proposing will happen when people do not get what they are entitled to?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Just, wow. I can't even...ok, whatever. At least the country is moving my way, christ.

Slavery:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery

Doctors and other caregivers are under no obligation whasoever to provide care. Doctors can quit their jobs and do something else. However, if you're employed as a doctor you are obligated to perform your duties as your employer sees fit and within the law.

No doctor or nurse or whatever is enslaved by a health care entitlement. The government should be obligated to do what it has to to provide care for the people. Which means paying them enough to want to do it...

Which is the EXACT [censored] OPPOSITE OF SLAVERY.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is NOT the exact opposite of slavery. Where will this money come from? What if it costs a LOT?

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me add my personal experience. I pay about $40 a month.

Knee Surgery Wait time 12 weeks (elective
Knee Surgery Wait Time 6 days (elective)
Retinal Detachment ( 1 hour )


[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah. This is why I have a bunch of bitchy patients in my office who often don't understand that they have to wait a little longer when someone comes in with a broken retina.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
But you said competition keeps costs down. Wouldn't doctors competing for buisness keep costs down? *confused* too

[/ QUOTE ]


How would doctors compete for business and keep costs down when our fees are regulated by the central government? (Like they are now for Medicare/Medicaid and other programs)

Likewise, the flow of patients is rarely controlled by the quality of the physician (although medicare will be telling you shortly that so and so is better than I am because he averaged 4.7 check boxes per form and I only did 4.5)- flow of patients is dictated by who has contracts with insurance companies. The insurers have the deck stacked because physicians are not allowed to bargain collectively, share information about contracts, or use other effective negotiation tactics.

B-dog: I have a problem with you characterizing the AMA as a union. I think trade lobby is more appropriate. Also, it is State Medical Boards that control the licensing (and thus supply) of physicians, and the Boards take direction from the legislatures. Since the "people" can't think for themselves, the Boards' mission is to protect the public from quackery. Your argument (probably valid) is that they have the threshold set too high, and thus in their attempt to limit bad doctors, they cause increased demand. This is being addressed other ways, since I'm no longer even called a physician most of the time, I'm just another "provider" like a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, optometrist or other physician extenders that do more and more of the heavy lifting in our healthcare system. The big plan would certainly include having more and more of these lower paid people doing much of the care.

[natedogg]

You have framed the debate with a false dichotomy, namely that *either* you support universal healthcare provided by government *or* you are a greedy scum who wants to let poor kids die from disease.

And you claim the dissenters can't fathom the nuance of your position. Nice.

natedogg

[Nonfiction]

0/101

[MiloMinderbinder]

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


Your government already spends more per capita on health than any other country in the world. Then private individuals spend as much again. The resulting health care system is ranked 37th in the world according by WHO.

Something is very wrong here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is a strike against a universal healthcare system...

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this reasoning. US ranks 37th behind mostly national systems, which are all cheaper by far than the US system. So this says what to you? That a national system is far worse than the current system ... with no further data or rationale necessary. I really don't know what to think on health care yet, but I know that simpletons like you only muddle up the debate more than they shed light.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the word "cheaper". When I, or someone I care for needs to go to a doctor, thats precisely what I'm looking for. A cheap quack over a highly trained specialist anyday, I say!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet more idiocy. Yeah, every doctor in Europe is a quack. Thanks for your reasoned input in this debate.

[MiloMinderbinder]

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


Your government already spends more per capita on health than any other country in the world. Then private individuals spend as much again. The resulting health care system is ranked 37th in the world according by WHO.

Something is very wrong here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is a strike against a universal healthcare system...

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this reasoning. US ranks 37th behind mostly national systems, which are all cheaper by far than the US system. So this says what to you? That a national system is far worse than the current system ... with no further data or rationale necessary. I really don't know what to think on health care yet, but I know that simpletons like you only muddle up the debate more than they shed light.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cheaper to who? Certainly not cheaper to the taxpayers who have to provide the "free" health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, yes in fact it is cheaper for them as their govt pays less per citizen on health care than even our govt.