# Universal Health Care - Should We?



## VinBin (Dec 18, 2005)

That was an interesting read...I do object to the idea of Universal Health Care...Mainly on the basis of personal choice.

Our ability to get a problem looked at when we feel it is a problem is a very powerful thing, something that isnt found in Canda (Or other nations with similar healthcare), which is often referred to as the "ideal" healthcare system. I didnt agree with Bush's idea for HealthCare either but it is closer to what it should be. Many people complain about how the main reason for bankrupcy is "medical reasons" but few actually address the fact that most of those individuals were NOT wise about spending before the "last straw" that broke their back...

Dont get me wrong, Im not against charity or anything for people who need help. Americans are some of the most charitable in the world, But it is the choice to give to a charity we deem worthy that is also a freedom...

I found an article that that presents an interesting case from Canada....http://new.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed072005b.cfm


----------



## Stevo (Dec 18, 2005)

*VinBin*, 
you do know the Heritage foundation has more irons in America's corporate fire than dones has pills i hope...

besides, we already have a single payer system and it works fairly well, Medicare.

the aura of choice or charity that surrounds the NHC issue is somewhat misplaced by sorts that really don't want us _(us little nobody's)_ to realize that the equity of care in general has suffered immensly in the growing disparity of todays America 

let me put this another way, the true measure of any country's governance is how the people fare under it's rule, _kabeesh?_ 

we live in a country who's hidden hand of capatalism has infiltrated and coerced our leaders resulting in something bettween an oligarcy or plutocracy

one faction, relevant to NHC here, is the insurance middleman , quite fat & happily lobbying their hearts out with visions of congressional sugar plumbs to maintain their position.

ergo, the top echelon lives large, while those underneath exist on their crumbs _(trickle down economics anyone?)_ resulting in stats like these;





> The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.



spend _more_, get _less...._

as well as...


> "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
> 
> 
> Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
> ...



source

~S~


----------



## VinBin (Dec 18, 2005)

The article I linked to being on the particular website has nothing to do with the message itself, I searched for this particular article I remembered reading earlier on Google, and found it on the Heritage one...It has nothing to do with the organization, I think the message is very relevant...

A main reason for the insurance middleman rolling around in money is because of federal systems of healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid that control the amount they have to pay, regardless of how much they are billed…That’s government healthcare for you!

The middle class is shrinking, and its not because of the “fat cats” who roll around in money all day, its people deciding that they have no reason to think logically about how they spend. Why do you think there are so many who live paycheck to paycheck? Do they all have medical bills?? No, it’s living on credit, any economist can tell you that!

Why is there such a cry for "fairness"? Why is it that all people, regardless of their decisions, should deserve the "right" to have others pay for them? The thing about the US is that we have more of a choice (more than other countries) over what we do with our money. If a man decides to get high and drink his whole life, is it my responsibility to take care of him? 

And finally, a good article that demystifies the WHO ranking of the US…
http://www.cchconline.org/publications/whoart.php3
“The World Health Organization primarily faults the United States for not requiring mandatory insurance or offering social welfare programs to all citizens--in other words, for being a free country with independent citizens. Given America's high level of health-care spending, the U.S. system does not achieve the organization's fairness and distribution goals relative to total health-care resources. In addition, the report criticizes the move toward medical savings accounts and the fact that 56 percent of America's health-care expenses are privately funded. 

Interestingly, the *WHO completely failed to broadcast that America's health system ranked first in responsiveness to patients' needs for choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality.* In other words, where it matters most to patients, the U.S. system excels. “


----------



## squid (Dec 18, 2005)

VinBin said: "Our ability to get a problem looked at when we feel it is a problem is a very powerful thing, something that isnt found in Canda (Or other nations with similar healthcare)"

I'm kind of confused as to what you meant here. There's not significantly less choice in Canada -- when you need it, you go seek healthcare. Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's. Unless you mean somenthing else that I'm not getting?


----------



## VinBin (Dec 18, 2005)

squid, in a Nationalized Health Care system, you cant just go and get a procedure done. You are put on a waiting list. Waiting lists for procedures that the government doesnt deem "urgent" are very common. 

Granted, it does seem that "overall" the Canadian system does seem to lead to healthier people, you have to be careful to say its not BECAUSE of the health system. People in the US are known to be unhealthier and have the highest child and adult obesity rates, no? And people who are at the lowest economic level arent necessarily going to seek care as much as those in higher economic levels for problems that are actually serious. 

Interesting Article...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared
Chart showing Obesity rates of different countries...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png *Notice Canada has almost HALF the rate of obesity as Americans...Japan and Korea, almost 1/10 the rate...*
"If the poorest twenty percent of Americans were excluded from health statistics, Canadian and American life expectancy and infant mortality rates would be almost identical.
There is some disagreement as to whether the poor are less likely to be healthy merely because they have reduced access to medical treatment in the United States. The fact that the poor in the United States are also generally poorer than in Canada is believed by many to contribute greatly to reduced health. *In the U.S. long waits for routine care are unknown; operations are scheduled immediately*."

The more you read about the health systems, the more you realize that the problems might not lie in the health system itself, but the attitudes and beliefs of people in those systems (ex. suing fast food for making you fat)...Its this lack of responsibilty for your actions that I find most irritating...


----------



## Stevo (Dec 19, 2005)

> The article I linked to being on the particular website has nothing to do with the message itself, I searched for this particular article I remembered reading earlier on Google, and found it on the Heritage one...It has nothing to do with the organization, I think the message is very relevant...



VinBin, the same NHC carnards used in may political banters are seen here.



> A main reason for the insurance middleman rolling around in money is because of federal systems of healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid that control the amount they have to pay, regardless of how much they are billed…That’s government healthcare for you!



or, one could say that the gov is holding the riens on one, while allowing the other to completely run itself off the rails



> The middle class is shrinking, and its not because of the “fat cats” who roll around in money all day, its people deciding that they have no reason to think logically about how they spend. Why do you think there are so many who live paycheck to paycheck? Do they all have medical bills?? No, it’s living on credit, any economist can tell you that!


the specture of blame?
your claiming that the demise of the middle class is entirely _their fault_ due to being financially challenged?

we could apply the thumbnail approach here, and simply compare the average Joe-bag-o-donuts standard of living to say, 40 yrs ago during the Ozzie & Hariet heyday to today couldn't we?

or we could dig up all the nobel laurelette economists whom have been given the door by this administration due to their alarmist stance

or we could start an entirely new thread (i'd be sooo there too) to dig deeper



> Why is there such a cry for "fairness"? Why is it that all people, regardless of their decisions, should deserve the "right" to have others pay for them? The thing about the US is that we have more of a choice (more than other countries) over what we do with our money. If a man decides to get high and drink his whole life, is it my responsibility to take care of him?



ah, the _real_ crux....

because a democtratic order predicates itself on _fairness_ VinBin.

we've seen that fight it in this country from suffrage to civil rights , and now health care is in the same limelight as those basic humanities 

this by far and large has nothing to do with the political diversions of _choice_ or _quality_ as it does with _equality_

our entire infastructure of roads, emergency or public service, military, governance , schools etc are all a common priveledge here, paid by the entire gambit of responsible to irresponsible citizens

why should health care be any different?

you do know that, under the current system, we all pay for that 12% (40 million of us) whom are the have-nots here right?



> Interestingly, the WHO completely failed to broadcast that America's health system ranked first in responsiveness to patients' needs for choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. In other words, where it matters most to patients, the U.S. system excels. “



i really gotta tell ya, i loath jingoistic editorials VinBin, they usually carry about as much wieght as the flat earth societies argument

the chief dif bettween a jingoist and a patriot here is one doesn't wear star spangled glasses, nauesatingly in vouge these days.



> The more you read about the health systems, the more you realize that the problems might not lie in the health system itself, but the attitudes and beliefs of people in those systems (ex. suing fast food for making you fat)...Its this lack of responsibilty for your actions that I find most irritating...



i'll agree on _this_ one to the extent of our McDiet's, the fact that ketchup is now considered a vegetable in school lunches should ring a bell or two




> Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's.



good one squid.

could i please have a show of hands among American ems'ers as to the increase of _no or low level_ incident transports merely for 'insurance reasons' ?

oh and, for extra credit, whyare  the ER's in America are closing thier doors faster than s**t through a goose , many to reopen as urgent care centers ?

ah, that lovely hidden hand of the market eh? always a dead giveaway of our true selves

~S~


----------



## VinBin (Dec 19, 2005)

squid said:
			
		

> Arguably, there's more choice, because you are much more likely to be able to get non-emergency care since the costs are much lower than the average American's.


 
See, that’s the problem, there IS A LACK OF CHOICE, that’s what I’m saying is the problem in nationalized healthcare. 
You seem to be confusing lower prices=more people being able to get it=more choice...I mean choice as in freedom to choose facility, doctor and time to get the procedure...

Yea, I think this would be a great discussion as a separate thread...but Ill quickly say something before I end this one here...

A democratic system doesn’t define itself by "fairness" in the sense your using it as Stevo. Suffrage and Civil rights was based on the equality of man(and woman), as an individual who possesses freedoms and rights. The right of all individuals to express their voice towards their Democratic Nation. It does not, however entitle someone to services they deem global. The equality of man ends with the freedom of all to do as they will within boundaries, it doesn’t carry on to healthcare and other services that you state. Equality doesn’t entitle someone who works and is able to get insurance for his family to receive the same level of healthcare as someone who doesn’t (for whatever reason) and depends on others for their care...that's what we call Socialism...(haha, God help me if someone here tries to support Socialism...)

The government should take care of basic, fundamental services, not because of equality but rather because privatization of those aspects would not be efficient (privatized military, for example). Healthcare is not a fundamental need that needs a government hand, it can run very well being privatized. The main problems right now is the government and their control over the healthcare market and the lack of responsibility that American consumers are exhibiting, leading back to my argument of overall poor health among Americans...

Stevo, you may dismiss the article that anlyzes the WHO ranking, but you have to say, for a country as large as the US, even with this overall low quality of health (which tends to have nothing to do with insurance or such and all to do with personal *choice* and *responsibility*), we are doing pretty good at keeping our people healthy (as healthy as a 500lb man who smokes can be) and alive...

I’m not a big fan of Bush, so don’t think I disagree with all the comments you made on the current situation, the middle class issue isn't a "result" of the current administration though, as much as peopel would like you to think...:shades_smile:


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 19, 2005)

This is a split from the thread "Girl Needs 16 lb Tumor Removed" located here 
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=1925

I felt this is a good topic and needed it's own thread.


----------



## Stevo (Dec 19, 2005)

yes, and thank you ffemt8978 , i find the issue fascinating due to the many political ties we all are subject to as citizens _and_ as providers.

do chime in, and *VinBin* don't stray to far, you've a cornucopia  of points going here that warrant discussion if you wish

now that _S_ words out i see, well i suppose it was only a matter of time so let's have at it. I had mentioned previously i was no BHL, i really do beleive in a hand up, not a hand out. Anyone wishing to see how the latter can fall on it's face need only look toward France where the peugout's are still smokin' 

Socialist systems scare people because they have the onus of lacking choice,  by definition we find....



> Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.



however i'd lend creedence to the possibility that when the top 1% of any country controls 99% of it's wealth and resources , and utilizes the governance to do so, we basically have _socialism for the rich_

choice then becomes slim pickin's because said scenario tends to Walmartize across the board, thus responsibity for proper governance is usually desirable**  good governance wards off potential monopolies, and today's insurance companies are merely a consortium that constitutes this...

**otherwise we repeat History

we all see the signs and sympthoms of the disease, we're just programmed to focus blame on the smaller pix, the same tunnel vision we are warned of on calls exists in this issue as well.  This is something the medico-political cabal here harps up anytime the issue arrises..

they know that they'd be on the loosing end in a nationaised scenario, a good % of papershufflers would be first to go....

do we _have_ a choice other than American health care? we sure do because we're good capatalists that subscribe to the lowest bidder , and seem to find ways to outsource to them....check out 
Medical Tourism

just one point, more to come...

~S~


----------



## FFEMT1764 (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes socialism...it seems to be working well for Sweden and Norway- they have free healthcare, and no one is complaining one bit...now if we could only get the politician to think of their contituents...


----------



## VinBin (Dec 20, 2005)

FFEMT1764 said:
			
		

> Ah yes socialism...it seems to be working well for Sweden and Norway- they have free healthcare, and no one is complaining one bit...now if we could only get the politician to think of their contituents...


 
heh...Ill be around, I enjoy hearing different sides to an issue.

Stevo, Socialism is an idea that is rather hard to define to strict terms...It ranges from ..."Government ownership of the sources of production." to "a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods." 

Whichever you base the idea of socialism on, the basis of that there is no individual ownership or control over what the person earns is the major problem. I am interested to hear your side to the points I brough up earlier on the situations that would result from nationalized Healthcare...



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> choice then becomes slim pickin's because said scenario tends to Walmartize across the board, thus responsibity for proper governance is usually desirable** good governance wards off potential monopolies, and today's insurance companies are merely a consortium that constitutes this...


I dont really follow what you are saying here, could you clarify?



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> however i'd lend creedence to the possibility that when the top 1% of any country controls 99% of it's wealth and resources , and utilizes the governance to do so, we basically have _socialism for the rich_


Socialism for the rich? Meaning the rich all share resources? Or something else? What Im really interested to hear from you Stevo, is your side to the Universal healthcare idea, lets get away from all the talk about things that have little to do with Healthcare and more to exactly how Nationalized will help or hurt the country on the basis of all people (rich and poor)...

My argument has little political basis or support for a specific party, other than that the government has no place to control many services that dont need control. It is based on what I have repeated many times, that each person has a responsibility to their actions and however those effect them now and in the future, and no other person who should feel responsible for those actions.


----------



## FFEMT1764 (Dec 20, 2005)

Me too...I always love a heated political debate...hehehehe  :nerd:


----------



## Stevo (Dec 20, 2005)

VinBin,
what i was trying to portray was the _mechanics_ behind the system that have brought us to this point. the movers and shakers of this issue really don't wish us to focus on specifics, they wish us to dwell in a sound byte/bumper sticker political mentality

topics such as abortion, guns, or second hand smoke are often merely diversions used explicitly for the masses to argue about while the deeper issues slip by them , only to dealt with by the few, not the whole.

you've brought _personal responsibility_ and _choice_ to the table, and i don't disagree with you other than to point out that they are constrained to what the system offers here.

there are books written on monopolies, they also touch on what is referred to as the walmartization of America. In a nutshell, it means your choices grow fewer as big biz congeals as an entity. Said entity(s) may not even be competitive , either via similar fortune 500 sugardaddy's , or because they control enough of the market to not even care about having to be. 

Capatalism being an animal that usually needs some manner of restraint has been basically let off the goverment leash in this millenium due to this...

perhaps a good example is the phrama-cabal here. companies like Pfizer have positioned themselves over the years to have every senior in America happily drooling through their golden years, along with the AMA's endorsment

we _all see it_ don't we? my personal best is an old lady on 42 different pills a day , looked like a handful of lucky charms....(don't tell the D.A.R.E. officer ok?)

Her choice was to cough up the $$$, or die. 

In fact i can think of many frequent flyers whom choose bettween eating and medications to keep them alive here, and these people have been solid citizens too, raised families, been veterans, stood by their country etc. 

only to be kicked when they are down....

So multiply that by X amount of baby boomers looking at the _'greying of America'_  think NASDAQ, and consider what we have for 'choice' 

meanwhile, the senior tour buss to montreal  continues to pass my home going north to a cheaper pusher, one whom has been the brunt of this administrations grumblings....

the scenario i am alluding to is indicative of socialism for the rich, i simply say that the goverment should in all fairness include the rest of us in on it

the savings in adminstrative costs alone to NHC should save a few forests of trees in paperwork...

~S~


----------



## VinBin (Dec 20, 2005)

Stevo said:
			
		

> there are books written on monopolies, they also touch on what is referred to as the walmartization of America. In a nutshell, it means your choices grow fewer as big biz congeals as an entity. Said entity(s) may not even be competitive , either via similar fortune 500 sugardaddy's , or because they control enough of the market to not even care about having to be.


 
Yes, Ive heard much on this "monopoly" that is WalMart and how its destroying the 'good ol' stores that America was founded on...but you see, to have a monopoly, you need a heavy stream of demand to maintain the monopoly. And it seems to me, that the same people who compain of how they are "monopolizing" America are the same ones who run to WalMart to get the discounts. 

Yes, it does discourage competition, you are very right about that, but you see, more government isnt the ANSWER, its the PROBLEM! What is the government going to do?? Hell, to start a business you have to run through 6000 loopholes, whos to blame for that? Walmart?? no, its the government that wants to ensure all is fair.



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> the scenario i am alluding to is indicative of socialism for the rich, i simply say that the goverment should in all fairness include the rest of us in on it


Im not sure what to make of this statement, I wish I could say I understood now what you meant by "socialism for the rich." But Im still having a hard time grasping the concept. Are you saying the rich control the country?? In that case, I would ask in what aspect, if you mean the rich control business, then of course! Socialism for the rich in its literal sense means that the rich all give and spread riches throughout themselves so they all get an equal share, I dont see this happening. 

Another point you made, "the government should let us in on it"?? In on what? the money? the business? If someone owns a business and makes 10million a year, how would the government ensure that this man isnt the only one who is capable of buying a big house? Why should we have homeless people when he is living in a big house? Should we demand the government provide free housing to those that cant afford it, and make those "filthy rich snobs" take care of it? Do you see what Im getting at?

Your comment on Pfizer is a good one, you are right, they charge ridiculous prices for the drugs that dont take a fraction of that to produce? They dont charge more because they do more "research" as they claim...That myth has been disproved many times, its because they spend so much on promotion and the main reason...THEY HAVE CONNECTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT!! See, the problem isnt a LACK of government control, they have TOO MUCH ALREADY! Drug companies gave an absurd amount to politicians (almost $1million to Bush, and near 100k to others) and lobby for programs that will ensure that they dont have to be in a true "capitalist" enviornment...the FDA? HAH! Half of the members on the "committes" have some connection to drug companies...

Our government is flooded with people who have connections to insurance companies, drug companies, all in the guise to ensure "fair trade", "fair marketing", "fair treatment"...We dont need the government to ensure equality...The market tends to do that itself, When a drug company creates a drug that killed 1000s because of a heart attack (Vioxx), they shouldnt have the FDA covering up and saying "they didnt know"...They shoudlnt get a slap on the wrist, in a free market, they would be drilled by consumers, here the Government tells us its OK! 

This isnt equality...Think about how they will screw up Nationalized HealthCare...

Id actually like to touch on the Administrative costs later, I should be getting back to work that needs to be done...:shades_smile:


----------



## Stevo (Dec 21, 2005)

perhaps to say _'by the people for the people'_ has evolved to _'by the rich for the rich'_ here would best describe what i claim is socialism for the rich *VinBin.* 

if you'd like i could post graphs, charts, and examples ad naseum, yet i think it'd take away from the chief issue here. 

it is all , imho, _catalyst_ to our current situation. and as much as i think W isn't qualified to run a McDonalds, the roots of it all have festered in our history for some time.

big-pharma speaks volumes when it comes to our current health care situation in bed with goverment here, which is why i use the example(s) previously 

go here for more on this

toward some common ground here, i do loath big goverment as well. in fact the bigger they get the more functionally inept they appear. (hiring equatrian lawyers for disaster mitigation, and instituting n.i.m.s. as an umbrella policy surely should raise a brow here)

however,even in light of this, WE (us little people that is) would fare better off with NHC run by said goverment as a lesser of evils vs. the goverment pimping American medicine to line the pockets of goverment cronies as it now stands

more as time permits

~S~


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 21, 2005)

How much of our daily lives do you want the government to control? Let's see- I can operate relativley debt free, keep my life on a decent schedule, keep corruption out and decency in, use the well being of my family and my fellow man as the guide for my actions, etc. But now we need to take an overpriced marginally ran system and take control of it away from me and others like me and turn it over to a bereaucracy that cannot manage itself, that is headed by the few people in this world more corrupt than insurance CEO's, that will say anything to further their ability to scruntinize their subjects, That goes deeper into debt simply because they can, that cannot properly fund programs now, that has more bogus and meaningless cash grab oppotunities than I could list on 100 pages of text, that has so many loopholes built into programs that have a tendency to screw middle America and further the upper class while developing a dependant class out of people that given proper direction could be an asset instead of a burden. Our government is not a benevolant one. Our government is not a competent one. Why in the world would we hand over such a large portion of our GDP and further the scheisters at the top. This would not create a better healthcare system, it would create a more dependant society and a less competent healthcare system and more powerful bereaucracy.


----------



## VinBin (Dec 21, 2005)

Very true hfdff422...



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> toward some common ground here, i do loath big goverment as well. in fact the bigger they get the more functionally inept they appear. (hiring equatrian lawyers for disaster mitigation, and instituting n.i.m.s. as an umbrella policy surely should raise a brow here)


Yes, good point.



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> however,even in light of this, WE (us little people that is) would fare better off with NHC run by said goverment as a lesser of evils vs. the goverment pimping American medicine to line the pockets of goverment cronies as it now stands


I still disagree on this point Stevo, and I would like to get back to this later today when I have a bit more time to respond. 1. Legal Issues and Corruption would run rampant and surely it will be a bigger mess than MediCare and Medicaid is now... 2.As hfdff422 stated, "us little people" are not an exception to the idea of independent thought and responsibility. We are not feeble and our minds dont fall apart if we dont think collectively. Being responsible with money and making sure you have the disipline to set aside money for necessities is no one's job but your own. Take for example that in general, we as Americans, dont care to save ANY money up until its too late, and then quickly proceed to blame the system that is "flawed" against us "little people"....whos fault is that?


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 21, 2005)

The Government has its place, and there are certain things that It should run- just not half of what it tries to run. Personal responsibility should be the standard expectation of our citizens. The reason medicine and care is overpriced is partly due to government micromanaging legal and professional issues. It also is partly due to varied interpretation of laws that allow way too much money to be awarded to malpractice suits that were filed for risky procedures to correct the stupidity of those who are suing. Many of these laws and criteria are put in place for our safety- sure, but at what point do we start living in guaranteed safety?- Never, but on the road to try to receive that guaranteed safety, we shall guarantee a loss of freedom. We are already paying a hefty bill for it financially. The advancement of medicine is inherently risky, and to guarantee advances- must remain so.

I will pay the cost of freedom, whether it be the risk of daily life, the price of medical care, or even putting myself in clear and present danger to ensure the American dream. I do not want to live in a society that $1.35 of every big mac is somehow tied to government cost and regulation. There are hair in your meat- there is rat crap in your soup- etc. At some point, regardless of government regulation there will be a risk of your lips touching something gross. Where would you rather eat, the mom and pop restaurant that serves fresh pie, or the Burger King that is very detail oriented on keeping up on their DOH inspections? Guess where you are more likely to have ants crawling across the dry goods.

To maintain the level of care that we currently have, government control would increase the inefficiency of expenditures and that bill will be felt by a vicious demise in our economy. We are not in a position to suffer the kind of hit that our economy would take.


----------



## Stevo (Dec 22, 2005)

$$$ for $$$ other countries with NHC fare better than we do *hfdff422*, and their citizens are not left out in the cold.

the ideal of personal responsibility via a healthy lifestyle saving the entire insurance pool $$$ is somewhat tedious, the tactic is often used to demonize the unfit as a focal point

every one of us will inevitably get sick or injured at some point, and all of us are going to eventually die.  Now if your lucky you'll go quickly and quietly _(i ain't leavin' ems nothin!)_ but should you lanquish your expenses will traditionally assume the most $$$ in your last 6 months.

this is where the other ideal of fiscal responsibility also falls on it's face, and when you've taken enough old timers from their homes to the local fossil museum , listening to the demise of that hierloom along the way inept goverment starts to look a whole lot better than greedy CEO's

the gov has proven it's superiority over the private sector in many regards here.

Medicare has a 3% administrative overhead iirc, compared to the private insurances whom are double digited

that said, did you know Vermont has socialized medicine? That's right, it's called Dr. Dinosaur , exclusively for kids here. 

works like a charm really...

you see, our history of have nots goes back quiet a way, after the depression a good % of us couldn't pass the physical for WW11 in fact. 

the level of toothless scarecrows here became a burden on society, so now our tax $$$ goes to Dr. D's _preventative_ concept

contrast this to the _ignorance_ concept that allows 40 million of us to be a potential burden and you may see my point

we are our brothers keeper here, like it or not...

~S~


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 22, 2005)

I am my families keeper- as in my wife and kids. If my brother cannot take care of himself, should I bring him into my home, let him eat my food and let him become a burden on me. Not for very long, a hand up is OK on occasion, but you cannot allow those who have the ability to care for themselves to not do so. I am OK with the productive members of society helping to care for those who are unable, but universal healthcare is not that. Universal healthcare takes control away from the members of society that are paying for it. We will not benefit from losing more rights and control of more services, not to mention allowing a top heavy government more access to more of our money. 
We should not be without compassion, we do need to take care of those who cannot do so, and furthering those programs is not something that any reasonable person is opposed to. Creating a larger dependant class and further coddling those who are abusing the system is not humanity though, it is a guarantee of a loss of liberty.


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 22, 2005)

By the way those little blue pills that line the pockets of the big drug companies, also fund research on unprofitable medicines- those medicines that can never be profitable, regardless of the price charged due to the rarity of the condition.


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 22, 2005)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Ben Franklin, God helps them that help themselves. from Algernon Sidney (1622–1683), The king's cheese is half wasted in parings;but no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk.- Ben Franklin


----------



## squid (Dec 22, 2005)

Vin Bin, I have lived in Canada and most of my family is Canadian. Your description of Canada's healthcare is inaccurate.


----------



## Stevo (Dec 22, 2005)

the rethoric here usually is *Squid*

Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care might serve as more fat for the fire comparing the two eh?


*MYTH: It would cost too much money.*
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
          The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.

*MYTH: It is socialized medicine.*
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.

*MYTH: Americans would pay more.*
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.

*MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.*
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.

*MYTH: It would cost employers more, make them less competitive and force them to fire employees.*
FACT: Experts say the employer tax would equal but not exceed what employers currently pay for health-care premiums and paperwork/billing overhead created by the current multipayer system.

*MYTH: Medicine would be rationed.*
FACT: Managed care already rations medicine. A single-payer universal health plan would ration services based on medical necessity. Managed care rations services based on profit. Under single-payer universal health care, no one would be denied care due to pre-existing conditions.

*MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.*
FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.

*MYTH: Patients wouldn't be able to choose their own physician.*
FACT: According to experts, a single-payer plan would give patients more choice than they currently have in most cases. The United States is the only developed country heading in the direction of less choice. Other countries are building more choice into their systems.

*H: The United States has the best health care in the world.*
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.

*MYTH: There would be waiting lists for surgeries and high-tech procedures, which is why Canadians come to the United States to get health services.*
FACT: The United States has waiting lists for specialty care, too. Canadians rarely come to the United States for health care. Less than 1 percent of Canada's health budget goes to paying for care Canadians get in the United States. Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now. Waiting times would likely be no longer in the United States than they are now, because we would still spend much more than other countries do on health care and still have many more specialists and capacity.

*MYTH: Physician salaries would be lowered, as would standards for physician training. It would discourage the best and brightest from going into medicine.*
FACT: Primary care doctors would see little or no change in their salaries. Some specialists would see a decline. All physicians would be paid more if they work in remote or underserved areas. Education, training and licensing policies are so similar for U.S. and Canadian physicians that their credentials are virtually interchangeable.

*MYTH: Canadian physicians are unhappy with their system.*
FACT: Nearly two-thirds are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied." About 500 Canadian doctors emigrate to the United States each year-representing about 1 percent of all Canadian doctors. Some return to Canada.

*MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.*
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey. 

~S~


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 22, 2005)

But what would a single payer health care system do to medical research?  After all, aren't most of the advances in medicine coming from the US?


----------



## MMiz (Dec 22, 2005)

ffemt8978 said:
			
		

> But what would a single payer health care system do to medical research?  After all, aren't most of the advances in medicine coming from the US?



Bingo!


----------



## Stevo (Dec 22, 2005)

even if that where so *ffemt8978*, it's a brass ring many can't catch, so it does little good....

go here

~S~


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 22, 2005)

Are you saying we should give up researching advances in medicine to take care of everyone or did I misuderstand you?

Also, in a single provider system, how do you motivate people to do any research at all?  In the countries that have single provider system, I don't recall any significant advances in medical treatments in the past 30 years.  Yet the one country that doesn't have a single provider system has also produced almost every significant advance in medicine, treatment, and technology in that same time frame.  How is that insignificant?


----------



## Stevo (Dec 22, 2005)

no *ffemt8978* 

if you read the link i've provided you'll see what i mean.

also, you keep stating we are numero uno here in America...

link, cite, stat, or what have you please.

~S~


----------



## ffemt8978 (Dec 22, 2005)

I never said we're numero uno.  I said, from what I remembered over the past thirty years, *I can not think of any other country that has come up with more advances in medicine, technology, or treatment*.  During that same time frame, I am unable to come up with any other country that has contributed as much to medicine as the U.S.

I did read the article, and agree that there is a gap between the advancement of healthcare, and the delivery of healthcare in this country.  I'm just not convinced that a single provider is the solution.

Let me ask you this, are you willing to turn your healthcare over to the federal government?


----------



## Stevo (Dec 22, 2005)

> I never said we're numero uno. I said, from what I remembered over the past thirty years, I can not think of any other country that has come up with more advances in medicine, technology, or treatment. During that same time frame, I am unable to come up with any other country that has contributed as much to medicine as the U.S.



very well ,perhaps a list of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - Laureates would help then 

i don't see any _one_ prevelant country, yet on the other claw i would wager all the universities here wouldn't shut down research under NHC

the other countries listed seem to have consistently had winners in medicine under it



> Let me ask you this, are you willing to turn your healthcare over to the federal government?



 i would say the flip side of your question might be _Do you think the federal goverment can save our present system of healthcare?_

are you willing to deal with all the _havenots_ that we will all face if they fail?

are you willing to deal with being a _havenot_ yourself, or having a loved one become a _havenot_ ?

~S~


----------



## Stevo (Dec 23, 2005)

> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Ben Franklin



a fav quote  422...

but there just isn't enough megabytes to discuss it here, else we would certainly burn a gapping hole in cyberspace

short version, we are not longer 'free', nor do we have 'freedom' when viewed as a common denominator in America

it's all be outsourced as far as i can tell....

~S~


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 23, 2005)

I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility of my needs and those of my family. If I fail, I don't think you should have to pay for me, and it would be criminal for someone to force you to do so. Coddling the able is only reinforcing the constant decline of personal responsibility. The able should be willing, but this is no longer the case. Further removing the responsibility is no way to improve the standard of life, it only allows us a sense of contentment. 

Caring for the elderly, dsiabled, and youth of America is in no way what I am talking about. We do have the responsibility of caring for those who are UNABLE to do so, but that responsibility does not extend to caring for those whose choices have prevented them from creating security for themselves.

Is it feasible to implement the government managing the payment of healthcare?- Certainly. Is it right for America to allow the government to manage the payment of healthcare?- No.

I believe that The United States Of America was once the greatest country in the world because it provided an opportunity to succeed. That opportunity has been dealt blow after blow by a bereaucracy that further burdens its subjects with nonsensical regulations and taxes and fees for every step of every process. Does the government have its place?- Most deifinitely. Does the government run things efficiently?- Somewhat. Should the government be more involved in the day to day life of the average person?- NO. America is, or at least was, unlike any other country in the world. 

We are trying to define our humanity by our "compassion" to our fellow man, but in the meanwhile we are taking away their humanity. We should allow people to succeed or fail on their own, not kind of succeed or get bailed out when there is a problem. This country allowed opportunity, but never guaranteed success. We do not need to be like every other country, we need to be like the ideals the country was originally founded on.

We were a diverse culture of persons who wanted to succeed and were willing to work to do so. Failure is acceptable, but to overcome that failure you must force people to work through it. Now, in an attempt to promote harmony and contentment we are taking success,  failure and individualism out of our culture and replacing it with apathy, dependancy, and integration. This is being done by a government that is so top heavy that we will eventually be crushed under its weight. Many see the government as a benevolant entity, but it is not. It is only the sum of its parts, and its parts are made up of crooks and ambitious persons that are allowed to thrive in a way that would normally be rooted out in the privates sector. Sure greed runs rampant in the private sector, but the furtherance of out civilization has been built on the contributions of the greedy. 

There is no utopia, unless apathy and lethargy is included in your utopia. There is no perfect system that will fix all of our problems. So we need to allow America to stand on the principles it was founded on to be the greatest country in the world, not the pork barrel that it has become. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005Oinkers


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 23, 2005)

Stevo said:
			
		

> a fav quote  422...
> 
> but there just isn't enough megabytes to discuss it here, else we would certainly burn a gapping hole in cyberspace
> 
> ...


 Only because we continually have sold it off. We need to stop allowing the further degredation of what liberty we have left and start assuming the risk of life.


----------



## VinBin (Dec 23, 2005)

Squid, my portrayal of Canada isnt an all encompassing statement about every individual or even your opinion, those that feel that they should depend on others for healthcare have nothing to worry about...Even the American Medical Student Association(Same site that included http://www.amsa.org/uhc/myths.cfm from Stevo), (which seems to be an organization full of Bleeding Hearts), they even clearly address that the problems that I noted in Canada DO EXIST...for example: 

There are coverage gaps in the healthcare system, particularly for outpatient prescription drugs and home care [2].
There is significant tension between the federal and provincial governments over both financing and jurisdiction, which has resulted in several heated battles in recent years [2].​ 
Waiting lists for certain elective procedures is a problem for *some Canadians* [1].

Except this article actually cited and wasnt a ridiculously biased report which only cites "Experts and random ideas" as FACT. 

Take a look at the WRITERS of the article that apparently "debunks" the "MYTHS OF NHI": They are a group of Medical Students which have no doubt been bombarded for almost 8 years with Liberal cathphrases (as I am now in college almost everyday)...They view rich/sucess and individualism as "bad" and all the poor as "lost souls that need direction". Also note that they view, as many here do, that the low income/poor cannot take care of themselves or tell right from wrong...For example, The same Medical Student Group on Obesity...

*What can we do?*
Action is necessary at many levels. Federal and State policymakers must act now to stem this growing public health threat. Medical students must push for meaningful policy change, while simultaneously addressing the issue at the grass-roots level through community outreach and education.

See a problem here with the basic approach to the problem? 

The rhetoric here isnt inaccurate Stevo, its just different opinions on the same matter...



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> short version, we are not longer 'free', nor do we have 'freedom' when viewed as a common denominator in America





			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> it's all be outsourced as far as i can tell....


​I dont understand what this means...We are no longer free?? Based on what? We have no freedom? Based on what? And what does oursourcing have anything to do with it? These sound more like catchphrases than a definition of the situation in America...



			
				Stevo said:
			
		

> very well ,perhaps a list of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - Laureates would help then


This isnt indicative at all about medical research and advancement as a whole, ffemt8978 is right, many of the innovations and products that are brought into the market, such as surgical techniques, treatements, and such arent traced back to an individual, but rather a research company or university (and if they are traced back to an individual, he wont get a Nobel Prize for it, unless he gives it free to everyone in the world)...Nobel Laureates and their location have nothing to do with America's rate of research and findings in the medical field... 

hfdff422 is absolutely right...You have to put everything in perspective, yes there are poor, and there are rich. But individually, they are two different people with different life experiences, one owes nothing to the other...I dont owe nothing to you Stevo if you fall into hard times, and if I "fail" and become a _havenot_, as you put it (I would also ask in what sense) you have no moral obligation to pay for me. Will there be help, and charity? Absolutely, there always will be, its human nature to help those in real need but to force others to take care of *everyone* is, indeed criminal. 

Here is an example: There is this flier statement that is put all across my univeristy by one of the BHL groups....I think it went something like this:
A person in the US has (something like) a 1:10,000 chance of being murdered, while a Transvestite has a 1:12 chance of being murdered, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I usually say to myself...nothing, I have nothing to do with their lifestyle, its not my job to protect them. What those BHL dont see is that the person is capable of making choices for themselves (what they conveniently leave out is that Transvestites in general put themselves in high risk situaitons that include a ridiculous amount of sexual partners and high correlation of drug use). See if you can make the connection to HealthCare in terms of responsibility...


----------



## Stevo (Dec 25, 2005)

interesting replies.

we have issues such as personal responsibility, a mistrust for big goverment which is wieghed against the private sector, my source of comparrison to Canadian NHC has been approached as liberal, and i apparently need to explain my side track to Ben Franklins quote.

allow me to parse these out, and let's see what fruitful debate may follow..

first off, how does the concept of _personal responsibility_ evaporate under NHC ?(or researsh for that matter) It would seem to me that i've transported many a crash victim merely for 'insurance reasons', with low to no MOI, and no real CC under the present system. 

why? 

well ,it seems they wish for someone else to pay for their problem, or potential problem.  I seriously doubt i'm alone amongst my peers here in said scenario. In fact in quite sure the legal community could chime in and back me up

yes , i believe in personal responsibility,but i also beleive that any governance has a responsibility to it's citizens. In fact a good read ( and best seller) pursuant to this would be Jarad Diamonds Collapse. 

why would i bring this up in relation to NHC ?

because every civilization within our rememeberance that had failed did so when they failed the masses. the very same signs and sympthoms are present now in America, examples such as this are not hard to find on the net, they are public knowledge. 

part of the reason lies in our priorities here at this time.

(plug the #'s in and it becomes a little clearer)

Instead, we could have insured 
137,154,959
children for one year.

I do beleive Eisenhower was right back when he forsaw the course we have taken.

as to mistrust of goverment, i'm no fan of liars, so hopefully that answers any queries there. however they do (allegedly) work for us, and the commonweal we enjoy is something we are billed for via our vote, thus the concept of personal responsibility for our roads, energy, water, or whatever resources we have are collective ideally rests in our _Vote_

the concept could easily extend itself to NHC

as to the Canadian link being painted liberal, there exists an entire internet of examples that are not so, take your pick. 

myself i am an old world conservative, not to be confused with the current neo-con jaunta.  One thing us conservatives like is things to stay the same, but as the world of health care is going bad quickly i find no _conservation of the citizenship_ under present system available 

It's changed, and it's done so radically in the last decade, give it another decade and a good % of the populance are just not going to cut the mustard here no matter how many jobs they may work in a week.

as to my return on B. Franklins quote (which i like) let me put it this way. 
How does anyone expect the USA to carry the torch of freedom _anywhere_ on this rock if we are _trashing_ it at home

those of you who fail to grasp this might well take a peek at the Congressional order to trash the PA, (allbeit an 06' electoral is nearing )

it all ties in together, imho, the economy, our deficit, our priorities and NHC

~S~


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 28, 2005)

The failure to our masses is no greater now than 100 years ago, the failure is just reported in a manner that it has never been before. There is no failing to the citizens if we stay out of their daily lives, only if we take from them, promise them something for it, then fail to give them a fair return. The government is ripe with examples of this. Almost every social security or pension fund is failing due to corruption or shortsightedness. The government itself is not so inept that it cannot administrate healthcare, but the people who are in charge of decision making are not as capable as the heads of many households in America. We need to be a country of self-made people, not governmentally controlled people. How can we have pride in ourselves if the governance of our lives is not our responsibility? How can we be individuals if we are forced to meld into the oneness of a monopoly? Microsoft is forced apart, but the Federal monopoly that is ever expanding without due regard to the principles it was founded on is the one that should redelegate the powers to the states in the same manner. True irony. We need to take every chance we get to stop giving power over to the steamrolling powerhouse. 

The reasons Stevo has listed to start NHC are all good reasons, and he has done nothing but produce a compelling argument of feasibility and humanity. My belief that we should not do it is only based on the ideas that we need to staunch the bleeding of our self respect and personal responsibility and we need to be willing to expect our fellow man to take care of himself so that they can be the best they can be instead of a growing dependant class. The government has gone too far in insuring that we have all the safety nets to fall back on which has only insured mediocrity and complacence.


----------



## hfdff422 (Dec 28, 2005)

The only reason that the government has the money to spend in that manner is because they continue to take it from us. Having NHC will not ensure that the government does not spend the monies unwisely, it only ensures they have more money to spend unwisely.


----------



## Stevo (Jan 1, 2006)

> The reasons Stevo has listed to start NHC are all good reasons, and he has done nothing but produce a compelling argument of feasibility and humanity. My belief that we should not do it is only based on the ideas that we need to staunch the bleeding of our self respect and personal responsibility and we need to be willing to expect our fellow man to take care of himself so that they can be the best they can be instead of a growing dependant class. The government has gone too far in insuring that we have all the safety nets to fall back on which has only insured mediocrity and complacence.



and i do thank you for a sanguine debate hfdff422, in fact it bears repeating that i also fear a totaltarianistic rule here, in only in that the larger it is allowed to grow, the more functionally inept it becomes.

anyone whom can see past the glittering fodder big gov hands us realizes the path we are on isn't a good one. 

in fact, recent news about raising the national debt limit is akin to a wild teen on a bing with his parents credit card.  

however i would ask that we look past our present situation and view our country _objectively_ (as we are all trained to do soap anyways) 

from a purely unbiased political view, _communism_ is taught to be a great system in it's pure form, the trouble is there's always some faction looking to get a leg up on everyone else, sans the concepts demise....

_capatalist_ systems are also taught to be a great system, however the very same malady of it being overbearingly inequitable allows it the very same demise.

they are comparitively , no less an animal that eats itself , unless the governance installs checks and balances to prevent this from happening

you and i are no less a _captive sharecropper_ under either system, the only difference really being a free society allows for it's minions to _howl in the wilderness_ instead of being condemmed to a gulag 

so if we view any country in simplistic terms being a good place to live, we need to rate ourselves objectively.

if in fact we come to the point where the average joe bag o' donuts can't assume a livable situation, can't sustain within his (or her) best efforts a family , i would put it to the group here that then they are not _personally_ responsible for their demise

a good example might be the russians right now, i don't think many even live long enough to die of a disease other than alcoholism, their governance is a shambles, the peoples in various subsets revolting

i don't want to see that here, and the way to ensure this (stricktly imho) is to maintain the governace as being a _serving_ entity to the people, instead of one that is serving it's top 1% on the backs of them

yrs....
~S~


----------



## Stevo (Jan 1, 2006)

health care concerns are moving to our legislative forefronts....

note my state's sunday headlines today

the issue grows directly proportional to what our citizenship can reasonalby claim as their personal responsibility within the median incomes scope of living standards in America at this time

unfortunately, i see this as an ecomonic juggernaut which i suspect many ems providers will be confronted in the field with.... i know i have, i'll assume many of my counterparts here are also...

~S~


----------

