You forgot "official".

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

True, but when the infrequency is different by orders of magnitude, it's significant. I can count on my fingers the number of times I've been in a courtroom or lawyer's office in my life. I can't do that for the the number of times I've been to some sort of medical facility in the last two years.

I agree that's hardly sufficient grounds to scrap UHC, but it is one of many indicators that UHC is not the panacea that many seem to think it is.

Except that we do not have that in the courts. If we did, they would be even more overwhelmed than they sometimes already are.

Until your uncle can't get a heart transplant because he's strong supporter of the wrong political party. One can almost always appeal a biased judicial ruling - it's hard to appeal a biased treatment denial for a terminal condition. Or less dramatically, I wonder how many 'unexplained leaks' we'll have of politically active people? Or opposition voices quieted by threats of the same?

No the universal application of Injustice, like Kelo or the War on People who use drugs. Healthcare examples include complete discontinuance of ( fill in the blank with infrequent but Very expensive treatment or procedure ) in a few years after UHC's IOU's start coming due ( unless/until somebody with enough political clout needs it, then there will be a rethinking of such a 'callous but well-intentioned miscalculation' ) or complete de-funding of research on any affliction that doesn't pay its own way or affect a politician.


In what fairytale land? UHC is essentially one huge insurance company. Hangnail? $5. Stitches? $50. Heart attack? $50K. Doctors' pay will be dictated by politicians and/or statisticians rather than by their bedside manner or competence.

Except that when a private company jerks you around, they can be sued, given incentives to improve their practices, and perhaps even be driven out of business. When the government jerks you around, they can... jerk you around.

I'm not in favor of arbitrarily 'leaving some out of the loop' - I'm in favor of honoring their choice to leave the loop.

I don't think I'm know for my patriotism - I think America is an unfair cesspool of corruption and selfishness. However, it seems to be the least unfair, nicest cesspool enduring the least corruption of any country I know of. (Not sure where it ranks on the selfishness, since we seem to be over-represented by both extremes.)

Tiny minority or not, he is a role model. If people see somebody who refuses to work and see that the result is living under a bridge in all weather and begging for scraps to eat, they realize that is probably not the life they want. If they see that same person living in a government house, eating free cheese and watching cable TV, raising a litter of welfare kids, and making frequent and free trips to the doctor to break up the monotony, such a life doesn't seem so bad, and thus will not remain a tiny minority.



They have that chance without UHC - but are they availing themselves of that chance? To quote a friend of mine - The safety net has become too much like a comfy hammock. I'm all in favor of giving somebody a helping hand, just not a heaping handout.

Revitalizing private charities, public policies that don't promote poverty, and government systems that don't increase medical inflation would all go a long way towards ameliorating that.

Health coverage should be decoupled from employment by correcting mistakes in the tax code. Okay, half done... And that decoupling would further reduce the already rare instance of being truly 'under-insured'.

Thank you for supporting my position. Bad health care companies change management. They decline, get bought out, and hopefully (tho not assuredly) improve.
Bad health programs? They decline, get more tax money, are used as talking points to re-elect the people who did it wrong in the first place, lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

The only effective solution to 'the poverty problem' would have to be akin to the attempted solution to 'the Jewish question'. I don't think there's the political will, moral justification, or probably a number of other prerequisites to allow that to happen in any of our lifetimes. (Altho if The Big O succeeds in destroying our society, I suppose it might be feasible in the successor one, which I'd probably live briefly to see.)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

You know, I can't help looking at that last phrase and thinking that it is very comparable to "democracy isn't the panacea that many seem to think it is," or "connection to the Internet is not the panacea that many seem to think it is," or "central heating is not the panacea that many seem to think it is," or "running water is not the panacea that many seem to think it is."

Certainly it isn't a "panacaea," but it's an indicator of civilization such that not having it brands a society as barbarous. It's something that makes people living in advanced nations outside our borders shake their heads and say, "My God, in the U.S. you can't even see a doctor without paying through the nose, can you believe it?"

Having UHC isn't a panacaea; nothing in the real world is. Not having it, though, is absurd.

It all depends on how litigious you are, or how much you need medical/ nursing assistance.

Its not a panacea, people will still get sick, and some will receive sub standard care, as occurs now, and arguments will go on as ever about funding.

Of course you do. The state, i.e. taxpayers provides lawyers for those who cannot represent themselves, as well as security and clerks and judges etc etc all of which are used by those who cannot pay.

One can always take a health provider to court, or appeal a medical panel's decision. Your wonderings are just tangential fantasy.


I get your point, but the justice system makes mistakes too, the current system makes mistakes, so too will a UHC system. Non of which contributes to a case against UHC.


What's wrong with statisticians? Anyway, doctors will still have their pockets filled with gold, earning a very nice living, and be held to very high standards that they will continue to attain. Moreover, money will become less of a concern, letting them focus on the real concern - the patient. You know this already.



Health providers, trusts in my country are regularly taken to court. They can also be taken to court, as can the government, in your country. This line of attack is utter flim flam.

Fine, let them leave the loop, but to avoid leaving some out of the loop one requires to have everyone contribute in some way. The likelyhood is the US will adopt a social insurance system, meaning youll still be using the same providers with the same people you always have been but under a much more streamlined system - probably like Germanys.

Look, just have a little faith in other Americans will you? Moreover, you obviously want to be regarded as truly the greatest country in the world, so all you have to do is make it happen. UHC is one step on that road.


Ridiculous, without preventive care and frequent check ups, which the uninsured avoid for cost reasons, they are at greater risk becoming debilitated. That affects both the uninsured, the indolent, and the children of both who have no choice in this scenario. Your safety net is just fine, being one of the least generous in the modern world, thus I advise you to stop moaning about it.

Indeed, as would UHC.

Covering every American would naturally entail some tax and payroll reform re health coverage, so we agree here.

Hopefully is the operative word here, there's no guarantee new business management will do much better.

Bad health programmes decline, are used as talking points, and the managers of such get fired, replaced with new ones who hopefully though not assuredly improve the situation.

Moreover public health programmes, being public, are under greater scrutiny by the public since everyone is paying for it, not just a bunch of shareholders who can simply get outvoted by a larger business block behind closed doors.

A public health programme has far more stakeholders with an interest and say in its operation than a health business, who's customers can only affect change indirectly by getting enough other people to stop using a service they often have little choice but to use.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I am waiting for someone to quibble about absolute, real, or relative poverty.

We already have a moral code in our own Constitution. The Bill of Rights is analogous to religious Ten Commandments, but that actually applies to our form of political-economy.

Solving poverty in our republic could be as simple as being moral and ethical to at-will employment doctrine and existing state at-will employment laws, since unemployment compensation that is just above the official poverty rate would solve that form of poverty.

But, you may be right about the populace not having the fortitude of truer Christian morals in the land of Canaan. That is why we routinely elect representatives to government who have to resort to affirmative action regarding morals, even with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge; and are "ensnared" by it as a result.

Otherwise, solving poverty in our secular republic is as simple as at-will employment doctrine can make it.

Unemployment compensation at-will, could make poverty at-will as well, since mostly the religious would consider religious-poverty a virtue.

In its simplest form, either party can terminate a social contract that results in employment, "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,", under at-will (employment) doctrine.

Ok, ill get my shot glass ready then.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

What do you think of the concept of solving for official poverty instead a symptom of poverty, less well developed health care infrastructure, through direct public sector interference.

If no individual market participant can claim to be in poverty due to a simple lack of income, why would the private sector need more command economics from the public sector, and the added tax burden imposed?

So Steve, I answer your challenge and I name more than two programs that have worked well when the proper amount of focus is applied, and you, what, run off, loose interest, feel stuck....

What happened?

He wasn't really expecting an answer, or to have to explain much beyond 'government doesnt work'.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Chocobot, I'm just curious, why do you care one bit what health coverage The United States has? Are you planning on moving here? Do you already live here?

The US is a major battleground of the worlds future, where alot of right wing ideas play themselves out and gain momentum. Perhaps even spreading to other countries. Not that the right's approach is always wrong - welfare and prison policy for example. However, I dont want the filthy notion of letting some go without coverage to spread to my country or anywhere else in the world.

The world can either go down the US route, or the european route. Healthcare is a major pillar of societal policy. Im interested in making sure the world follows the euro model, so I take the intellectual battle to the right in the US before they can spread their filthy ideology elsewhere.

Besides, its a fascinating argument.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Whassatmatta'??? Feeling neglected?

Let's look at your responses:

Wrought with fraud.

How many times do you hear about someone dying, and someone else continuing to cash their Social Security checks?

Often, I think...

Yeah.

75 years ago.

Got anything a little more current?

I fail to see how the execution of a war translates to being able to run health care.

But, please, expound...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

As everyone can see, no mentioned of exactly what period you wish to speak of.

Easily;
Modern war is a vastly complicated exercise of planning, work, commitment and above collecting and spending money. There are many similarities, as this is same in running a healthcare system. Often healthcare workers are even referred to as frontline, or not frontline.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?