Nationalize Health Care by SergeantX

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Nationalize Health Care

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Monday, March 16, 2009 17:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2428
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, March 14, 2009 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Earning money honestly does reflect that people voluntarily value what you do - enough to pay you for it.

But did you pay your parents for raising you? Do you pay your best friend for comforting you during a difficult time? Do you pay your partner for improving your quality of life, and do you pay each other for housekeeping?

There is so much more to what people do than is recorded in monetary transactions.

And since someone brought up the example of friends and family pooling money... who here has friends and family that could sustain paying for prolonged dialysis treatment out of their pocket? If they can't, does this mean you were a bad child/parent/friend/spouse? Are you family and friends not valuable enough to society to earn that sort of money?

Money judges how people value you professionally - maybe, considering how badly nurses are paid. But that's it. And I do think that people are much, much more than their job-related income.

ETA: What I mean to say is, it's a really ill-advised measure to use, to determine who gets necessary medical treatment. I don't consider health care a "perk", that people earn who work extra hard (because they have the privilege to be able to do so), but something everyone should have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:10 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@SergeantX:

You should really prefix this with, "This comment is only valid in the USA." Because, nationalised health care is a wondrous thing in many other countries.

"""
Making health care a government provided service will present all kinds of ugly problems and be tremendously wasteful.
"""

This is actually the boogy-man of the people for privatisation. Lets look at an example. In Canada the most privatised system is in Alberta. But, AB has the most expensive health care not to mention the wait times are rivalled by only the poorest provinces. Not exactly the poster child for the success of privatised health care. Not to mention that the USA is pretty much a perfect example of a non-functioning health care system. Privatisation is certainly an exceedingly poor choice.

I'll also point out that my wife has talked to someone who has worked both in politics at the federal level and in industry. He explicitly stated that government works several times (if not an order of magnitude or two) faster than industry. That probably has something to do with the fact that industry is risk adverse and can get away with it, while government has much less ability to get away with that. I could go on.

At any rate, the proof is in the pudding as they say. And what we see is that socialization of the health care system has numerous benefits. You guys in the USA might not like that. But, that doesn't make it any less true. Ya just gotta figure out a way to make it happen without the possibility of getting screwed by the HMO's (like that's not happening already...). In a word, regulation.

----
I am on The Original List (twice). We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
There is so much more to what people do than is recorded in monetary transactions.

...

ETA: What I mean to say is, it's a really ill-advised measure to use, to determine who gets necessary medical treatment. I don't consider health care a "perk", that people earn who work extra hard (because they have the privilege to be able to do so), but something everyone should have.

That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at.

Sarge, perhaps we've beaten each other, and between strokes the topic, to death on this, but my general feeling is that healthcare is not a privilege. That's one reason why I say Healthcare is a special case.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:40 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sarge, perhaps we've beaten each other, and between strokes the topic, to death on this, but my general feeling is that healthcare is not a privilege. That's one reason why I say Healthcare is a special case.

I understand. If you see health care as a right, your view makes sense, but I see a basic contradiction in defining a service provided by others as a "right".

Anyway. Beaten to death - agreed. Especially in a thread intended as a concession to pragmatism rather than an ideological screed. I just don't know when to shut up.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:46 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you see health care as a right, your view makes sense, but I see a basic contradiction in defining a service provided by others as a "right".

A fair trial is a service provided by others, isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:29 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
A fair trial is a service provided by others, isn't it?

Good question. Mind starting up another thread on this?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:06 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
A fair trial is a service provided by others, isn't it?

Are you talking about a court appointed defense lawyer versus the high priced defense lawyer?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:31 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Are you talking about a court appointed defense lawyer versus the high priced defense lawyer?

Or the Jury. Or the Judge.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:57 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
A fair trial is a service provided by others, isn't it?

Good question. Mind starting up another thread on this?

SergeantX

I thought it was relevant here, actually. Some rights need other people to be realised, so I don't see the contradiction you see, of having them dependent on certain professional services or institutions, like those involved in the justice system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:00 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
A fair trial is a service provided by others, isn't it?

Are you talking about a court appointed defense lawyer versus the high priced defense lawyer?

I really meant the whole thing. People taking their time and education to create a process.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh don't get me started...

From Public Defenders who take dives to keep good relations for their impending career on the other side of the courtroom and eventually in hopes of the bench... to hand picked Jury pools who are then deliberately misinformed and shown a set-piece choice of evidence selected by the state to bring about a verdict... to judges who have a financial interest in guilty verdicts - the entire process is a rigged game from start to finish and everybody knows it.

And let's not even get into the gamesmanship of bullshit like refusing bail and postponing a trial to keep someone imprisoned as a method of forcing a guilty plea - or shifting a trial date AFTER the notice is sent in order to provoke a valid bench warrant so they can do the former, despite the original charges being so flimsy as to be laughable...

Case in point, Carol Asher, who faced prosecution and vilification, not to mention a shitstorm of legal fees, for not following the judges browbeaten threats and demands for a guilty finding.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20060202.htm

I've been there myself, having told a judge to his face that *demanding* I produce a certain verdict denies the right of a fair trial and thus ensures I can produce nothing but it's opposite.
(damn near got cited for contempt for daring to speak those words too, ponder THAT for a moment.)

So let's not even try to pretend that the American Justice System is anything but a fucking sham, ok ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:46 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So let's not even try to pretend that the American Justice System is anything but a fucking sham, ok ?

-Frem

I wasn't talking about the American justice system. I'm talking about the concept of a fair trail.

It's a right that depends on other people, it's not a "let me do my own thing" right, it's one that requires the involvement of other people, like medical care.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It's a right that depends on other people, it's not a "let me do my own thing" right, it's one that requires the involvement of other people, like medical care.

I think I remember speaking to Sarge about this before. He said that you don't have a right to a fair trial, you have the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:23 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
It's a right that depends on other people, it's not a "let me do my own thing" right, it's one that requires the involvement of other people, like medical care.

I think I remember speaking to Sarge about this before. He said that you don't have a right to a fair trial, you have the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial.

Oh... Hmm. Good point. :)

Still society wouldn't work really well without a concept of communal justice. In the same way, I don't think society works well when there are big gaps in terms of basic necessities, like health care.

Even if it's not a right, it still makes sense to have it available to everyone, because withholding it causes instability in the long term.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:27 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Not to mention that NOT having access to decent health care is actually more dangerous even to those who DO have access. Put it this way - you've got a poor person with TB, which COULD be controlled if they could afford to go to a doctor, get diagnosed, get put on the right meds, and be able to actually GET those meds. Instead, they walk around coughing on you and me, spreading their illness because they really have no choice - they have to go to work because if they miss a day, they either lose their job or lose a day's pay, meaning they go hungry, and very probably get sicker.

Lest you think that's a ridiculous scenario, I can assure you it's not. It's all too real for all too many Americans, the ones we call "the working poor". They have jobs, but can't realistically move up or move ahead. They're subsisting at just enough of a living to have a roof and a meal, and there's nothing left for health care, prescriptions, or anything else. And of course, they "make too much" to be on Medicaid.

Just something to ponder...

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 2:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I find the most interesting aspect of the US debate on healthcare is this incomprehension about how any kind of national health might work. good lord, let all scratch our chins and imagine the worst case scenario. How could it ever work? It will be like inviting the soviet union into the country!!!! The sky will fall down.

How about looking at places where *gasp* the health care system might actually be working better than in your own country and look at what happens there.

The French system is ranked the best in the world by WHO and contains a mix of public-private health options. The French spend far less % of their GDP on health to get this success. Maybe it would be good idea to see what works in such a system and take some good ideas from somewhere else, instead of acting like the wheel has to be invented all over again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
instead of acting like the wheel has to be invented all over again.

Which, thankfully, it doesn't.

We do have an existing infrastructure in the medicare system, however it's slipshod, having been clobbered together piece by piece instead of formed as a functional whole, and it's primary focus currently is on avoiding expense even at the cost of patient care.

It's crap, and as a start point would supremely suck, but if we wanna get this into action any time this century, we're gonna hafta start there.

Of course, you couldn't call me an unbiased source, since I could make a valid case for attempted murder by neglect and denial of care against the medical care system as a whole, and that does include the medicare infrastructure as a part of it.

I mean, when the guy you brushed off cause he was "going to die anyway" is STILL in your case two years later, maybe, just maybe, it might be a good fekkin idea to assume he might live and start trying to assist that, instead of waiting almost a year and a half later for a court order from a federal judge demanding you do so.

Most of the real damage came from that, not the accident, and I am still quite pissed about it given that as of Apr 2008 my assumed life expectancy goes into negative numbers...
Borrowed time indeed *snort*.

As my ex put it, if only the good die young, that makes me virtually immortal.

-ArchLichFrem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 5:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

One of the least satisfactory elements of democracy is that lots of things are cobbled together from existing elements and compromise often means that effectiveness is compromised. It takes a very, very strong government to implement real change. Sometimes that is necessary. I think it sounds like you guys are at that point. I don't claim to even begin to understand how your system functions currently, but everything I hear about it (and granted it could all be incorrect) leads me to believe that its a) leaking money like nobodies business b) has lots of gaps for poorer people to fall through and therefore get inadequate services.

I don't have either the constraints or protection offered by your constitution and I don't have any ideological objections to governments collecting taxes and providing some services. My belief system is this; wherever possible, universal healthcare should be aimed for. That is, everyone has an entitlement to be offered affordable healthcare for themselves and their families. No one should be turned away from emergency medicine, and no one should have to make decisions like 'should I keep the house or get the chemo to keep me alive'. That is my belief and no discussion around what rights are will make me change my mind.

I think there are lots of ways to offer this kind of entitlement. It happens all through the western world. There are pros and cons in all systems. I live in a country where there is publically funded healthcare (ie from our taxes) and there is also private healthcare. We spend less % of our GDP on health. I think it works okay, although I'm the first to admit there are flaws. I do know that whatever my income or job status, if I get sick or injured, I'll get the treatment I need regardless of whether I'm insured or not.

I don't understand why the world's strongest economic power has let ideology get in the way of offering an equitable service, why it seems to difficult?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE