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

[Borodog]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think "entitled" means? What do you think "care" is? "Care" is human labor that must be provided by other people. "Entitled" means, literally, that you have title of, i.e. own a thing.

You are *literally* saying that you own other human beings' labor.

If that isn't slavery, please provide for me a *non-meaningless* definition of slavery.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree with your premise that I owe you anything, I feel that if you're unable to provide for yourself, you should only recieve essentials, such as emergency room care for medical emergencies. If I'm able to provide insurance for myself, I should have the added advantage of being able to go to the doctor for petty things.

Life isn't fair, and trying to "force fairness" has never worked. Well, actually, I take that back, it has worked. It works in this sense: The poor stay poor, and the wealthy become poor too.

[One Outer]

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.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] *head asplode*

So you've been arguing for free market health care this whole time? I'm confused. And what is a progressive? The people I know that claim to be that certainly don't support anything like fair compensation. (No level of compensation that is not voluntarily agreed upon is fair. DUCY?)

[ QUOTE ]
Anther thing, arguing by analogy isn't valid. Stop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

First of all, FORCING AN INDIVIDUAL TO PRODUCE A GOOD OR SERVICE is not merely similar to slavery by way of analogy, it *IS* SLAVERY.

Second, do you ever do anything besides assert? Health care is a basic human right because I say it is. Argument by analogy is invalid because I say it is. A given level of compensation is fair because I say it is. Black is white because I say it is.


Let me make this as simple and analogy-free for you as possible, although unfortunately I will still be using logic which you don't seem to understand either.

Is anyone MORALLY OBLIGATED to provide health care or not? YES OR NO?

If the answer is no, then health care clearly is not a basic human right, as you have asserted with no support.

If the answer is yes, then SOMEONE MUST be MORALLY OBLIGATED to supply it. This is logically inescapable. If doctors are morally obligated to provide more health care than they receive, then they are clearly net losers from this "basic human right," and thus are quite obviously not "fairly" compensated, even by the most bizarre standard of fairness. If everyone has the same obligations, then the poor are the evil ones by virtue of not providing. These are the only two logical conclusions. (You will no doubt ban me from using logic soon as well.) WHICH IS IT?

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
When my mother was born in 1960, the delivery cost my grandmother $28. When I was born in 1977, the cost was $67.

Any of you have any kids lately? How much does that cost?


[/ QUOTE ]

My insurance company was billed over $20,000 for the birth and nursery care from the hospital. Another $3000 from the OB. And I haven't seen the bill yet for the 3 weeks my kid spent in the ICU. I'm guessing it will be over $200,000. I have insurance, but if I lost my job for whatever reason during the last year, then where would I have been? And will my kid be fully covered by my employer if her complications require much more treatment in the future? Not sure.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
Which means paying them enough to want to do it...


[/ QUOTE ]

And here lies the rub.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]

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...


[/ QUOTE ]

The government must do whatever's necessary! Use as much of taxpayers' money as it takes! Spare no expense! So now it's not the doctors who are enslaved but the taxpayers who bear the OBLIGATION your entitlement implies.

You can shift it or mask it but you can't remove it: If you claim you have a right to health care, you wish to force someone to provide it for you.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which means paying them enough to want to do it...


[/ QUOTE ]

And here lies the rub.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Obviously whomever wrote that has zero experience with dealing with government contracts. The only government agency that pays anywhere near Fair Market for any service is the DOD, and occasionally they go far overboard.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ 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.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ 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!!