59% of US Doctors favor Universal health care - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Imperator · #61 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think that I'm not expressing myself clearly.

What I mean is "unwinnable" is the game of healthcare in general. That is, health care is designed only to postpone the inevitable. Theoretically, we could have a society without crime, without poverty, without drug use, etc, etc. Theoretically (well, for all intents and purposes) this is not the case with health care, when it comes to stopping illness/death. Regardless of what sort of system we adopt or laws we enact, the system will always "fail" people on a long enough time line. Or, think of it this way: some people blur the line between a right to, say, health care, with a right to be healthy.

So, we're socializing a system that cannot possibly please people. Obviously, people who have no access to health care will be pleased to have access to health care. But, when that initial pleasing wears off, and it becomes just another thing to which people feel entitled, there will be significantly more blame of the system for health problems (potentially not the system's fault).

And, I don't particularly want any sort of health care system in the country to fail, socialized or not. To be blunt, I don't want a socialized system, since the inevitable result of such a thing will be another vehicle for taking my money/property and giving it to other people without my consent. But, if it is implemented, I'd rather it be successful, so I could at least get something out of it myself (though I harbor no delusions that it would be "fair" to me).

bingo.

brit system? just a foretaste- google: “stacking” in brit ambulances,- the point?
the brit gov. can regulate all it wants and take all the cash it think its needs, its never ever ever enough.

In this country it’s the same…. how many prgms do we fund that are just a matter of feeding the beast, don’t die and/or never ever fulfill their mandate…hows that education thing going? How many more BILLLIONS have we throw at it in the last 15 years? How about Social security? Hows that working out, they’re doing a great job of managing that to eh?

They are a self perpetuating money munchers, and so to will be health care and there will STILL be folks not getting care they need.
This huge lack of coverage is bullshit as well, 44 million is a very arbitrary and padded figure.

The point being, there will always be 10-15 million always…as a % of our population that’s about as good as it gets for society.
4.5% of our pop. Without coverage? Dude…..

jviehe · #62 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Amazing how you can discern all that, given we've never even devised a system.

Remind me to ask you for lotto numbers.

I am simply going by what the democrats have proposed, to basically buy insurance for everyone.

jviehe · #63 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

And the Plan for the millions without access to health care, unaffordable medical bills, and crippling monthly medication costs is:

(drum roll...)

"It sucks to be you, you shouldn't have gotten sick, it'd be best if you crawled under a rock and died, worthless scum."

Ladies and gentlemen, your modern compassionate conservative.

SHow me someone who doesnt have access to health care, and not because of their own choices.

Skerlnik · #64 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

SHow me someone who doesnt have access to health care, and not because of their own choices.

Oh, no, no, I ain't getting drug into that style of debate, again. Learned my lesson.

If you don't think there's a problem, I'm not going to attempt to convince you there is one.

I will simply submit that while personal responsibility is important, so is assisting those who may have fallen, and are in that "cycle" of debt and dependency. I am far less interested in smugly punishing other Americans for their situations, because it might cost me a little, to help them out.

If a country like ours can't even guarantee a few checkups a year, good local clinics, and preventative medicine, something's really wrong.

"Oh Well, It Sucks To Be You" is a horrible, self-centered motto, and I tend to hear that most from self-described Christians, oddly. Don't know why.

I just don't understand why people feel some sort of basic "universal" health care insurance is so terrible.

jviehe · #65 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Oh, no, no, I ain't getting drug into that style of debate, again. Learned my lesson.

If you don't think there's a problem, I'm not going to attempt to convince you there is one.

I will simply submit that while personal responsibility is important, so is assisting those who may have fallen, and are in that "cycle" of debt and dependency. I am far less interested in smugly punishing other Americans for their situations, because it might cost me a little, to help them out.

If a country like ours can't even guarantee a few checkups a year, good local clinics, and preventative medicine, something's really wrong.

"Oh Well, It Sucks To Be You" is a horrible, self-centered motto, and I tend to hear that most from self-described Christians, oddly. Don't know why.

I just don't understand why people feel some sort of basic "universal" health care insurance is so terrible.

We feel that way because we are happy with paying for healthcare on our own and because the alternative has been shown not to work. Why would I want to switch to something inferior?

Skerlnik · #66 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

We feel that way because we are happy with paying for healthcare on our own

Great for those with means, sure. I rarely worry about them.

Quote:

and because the alternative has been shown not to work.

That depends who you ask. I'd be willing to say we'd not simply mimic, but invent something far superior.

Quote:

Why would I want to switch to something inferior?

Remains to be seen whether it would indeed be inferior or not. We have smart people here. If given the mandtate, I suspect we'd come up with something workable.

Is your glass always half empty, man?

dannotoronto · #67 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think that I'm not expressing myself clearly.

What I mean is "unwinnable" is the game of healthcare in general. That is, health care is designed only to postpone the inevitable. Theoretically, we could have a society without crime, without poverty, without drug use, etc, etc. Theoretically (well, for all intents and purposes) this is not the case with health care, when it comes to stopping illness/death. Regardless of what sort of system we adopt or laws we enact, the system will always "fail" people on a long enough time line. Or, think of it this way: some people blur the line between a right to, say, health care, with a right to be healthy.

So, we're socializing a system that cannot possibly please people. Obviously, people who have no access to health care will be pleased to have access to health care. But, when that initial pleasing wears off, and it becomes just another thing to which people feel entitled, there will be significantly more blame of the system for health problems (potentially not the system's fault).

And, I don't particularly want any sort of health care system in the country to fail, socialized or not. To be blunt, I don't want a socialized system, since the inevitable result of such a thing will be another vehicle for taking my money/property and giving it to other people without my consent. But, if it is implemented, I'd rather it be successful, so I could at least get something out of it myself (though I harbor no delusions that it would be "fair" to me).

What amazes me is how people that fear a universal system ignore all of the universal systems in the world that outperform the U.S. system in practically every key metric.

drgoodtrips · #68 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannotoronto

What amazes me is how people that fear a universal system ignore all of the universal systems in the world that outperform the U.S. system in practically every key metric.

I don't think you quoted the right post. This doesn't appear to have any relevance to what I said.

drgoodtrips · #69 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Oh, no, no, I ain't getting drug into that style of debate, again. Learned my lesson.

If you don't think there's a problem, I'm not going to attempt to convince you there is one.

I will simply submit that while personal responsibility is important, so is assisting those who may have fallen, and are in that "cycle" of debt and dependency. I am far less interested in smugly punishing other Americans for their situations, because it might cost me a little, to help them out.

If a country like ours can't even guarantee a few checkups a year, good local clinics, and preventative medicine, something's really wrong.

"Oh Well, It Sucks To Be You" is a horrible, self-centered motto, and I tend to hear that most from self-described Christians, oddly. Don't know why.

I just don't understand why people feel some sort of basic "universal" health care insurance is so terrible.

I've seen you allude to something and meant to ask you about it.

You talk about anyone benefiting from others (or society in general) being healthy. That is, apparently, you being healthy is somehow beneficial to me in a tangible way, or at least could be.

Can you expand on this? Are you talking about specific vectors for spreading infection (i.e. more people with communicable diseases means I'm more likely to contract one), or are you stating this, as the general case? Are you referring to the notion that having a sizeable portion of the country homeless and diseased would impact the quality of life to a significant degree for everyone else?

(Not making a rhetorical point - just asking)

drgoodtrips · #70 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

bingo.

brit system? just a foretaste- google: “stacking” in brit ambulances,- the point?
the brit gov. can regulate all it wants and take all the cash it think its needs, its never ever ever enough.

In this country it’s the same…. how many prgms do we fund that are just a matter of feeding the beast, don’t die and/or never ever fulfill their mandate…hows that education thing going? How many more BILLLIONS have we throw at it in the last 15 years? How about Social security? Hows that working out, they’re doing a great job of managing that to eh?

They are a self perpetuating money munchers, and so to will be health care and there will STILL be folks not getting care they need.
This huge lack of coverage is bullshit as well, 44 million is a very arbitrary and padded figure.

The point being, there will always be 10-15 million always…as a % of our population that’s about as good as it gets for society.
4.5% of our pop. Without coverage? Dude…..

I see two separate "proposals" from people. One is what the Dems seems to be proposing, which is that we use federal tax dollars to provide health insurance for the uninsured. I'm not really a fan of this idea, but it isn't all that bad (the government is going to waste that money on something, and this is at least humanitarian). However, it does nothing to address current exorbitant healthcare prices and profiteering.

Putting the government in charge of healthcare bothers me a great deal more. This is when you're going to have the zero sum game I was talking about, and the inevitable and extreme inefficiency of government for health care. I hear a lot of conflicting tales of efficiency/inefficiency from other nations about their socialized health care, so I don't put a lot of stock in that on its face. However, administering such a policy in nations with a fraction of the population of the US is going to have only a fraction of the waste and overhead that we will in terms of administration. I also find this policy objectionable personally because of how it will play out for me. I'll have more of my income taken and continue to use private health coverage, since most things that our government does tend to be inferior to any private enterprise competing with them.

Imperator · #71 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by dannotoronto

What amazes me is how people that fear a universal system ignore all of the universal systems in the world that outperform the U.S. system in practically every key metric.

really such as?

Steve · #72 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I don't know. I'm not sure that taking the argument to the extreme is helpful.

Why? Because it's inconvenient?

Steve · #73 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

I have health coverage. I pay for it.

If someone else wants health coverage, let them pay for it.

I'm already paying for mine...

dannotoronto · #74 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

really such as?

If you have to ask then that tells me that you haven't take the time to research the reality of universal, single payer health care systems.

Since you're ignorant to the realities of the success of universal health care systems and how they outperform the U.S. system then this means that your perspective is not an informed one.

And now you expect to be spoon-fed the information rather than take initiative to research it yourself.

dannotoronto · #75 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

I have health coverage. I pay for it.

If someone else wants health coverage, let them pay for it.

I'm already paying for mine...

But you're paying more for it than you need to. Countries that enjoy universal systems enjoy lower per capita spending while providing superior health care to all if is citizens.

But hey, if you want to go it alone and pay more then so be it. But don't call it an intelligent choice. It ain't.