• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Do you not see that you are attempting to excoriate my argument because it is using an exception whilst you are using and exception to make your argument?
Click to expand...
No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.
 
UserGoogol said:
Who do you mean by we? It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton's health care plan consists of providing various tax subsidized health care plans that people can choose to take if they want and an obligation for people to buy health care from some insurer although it doesn't have to be the government. Obama's plan is similar but doesn't even require people to have any insurance at all. Although, of course, many people do endorse single payer health care anyway, and it is the norm in many countries, so it is not unreasonable to focus on that. But one should not conflate one with the other.
Click to expand...

Do you remember her plan as first lady in 1993? Even the Dems thought it a horrible idea. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."


To the current plan she has stated that the government would need to go after the wages of the citizens to pay for the system. How much of a persons labor do you think the government should take for this system?
 
Wolfman said:
No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.
Click to expand...


You are requesting an impossible task. There is no was to quantify quality of care. This request is disingenuous at best.

Please explain why Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket for health-care if the "free" Canadian system has better quality?
 
Just imagine those glorious days ahead when we can all enjoy hospitals that are as well run as the VA hospitals. How great will that be.
 
Darat said:
So let me get this straight you don't think a mistake was made by a bureaucrat? Or are you saying it was an "egregious mistake"?
Click to expand...

Large bureaucracies inherently make egregious mistakes. In this circumstance three mistakes were made by the bureaucracy to one person. I doubt that it was a single bureaucrat which made all three mistakes. Few people are that incompetent.
 
kallsop said:
Just imagine those glorious days ahead when we can all enjoy hospitals that are as well run as the VA hospitals. How great will that be.
Click to expand...

On that point, I was watching a documentary the other day about global warming and they were using the example of the European heat wave a few years ago as an example. I was struck by the images in Paris of the elderly suffering from heat stroke. In the hospital the way they were treating and cooling the patients down was battery powered hand-held fans. WTF? Paris hospitals do not have air conditioning? Great public system.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
WTF? Paris hospitals do not have air conditioning? Great public system.
Click to expand...
Very few places in Paris have A/C. Such a heat wave is very rare there.

And several years ago over 500 people died (mostly elderly) of a heat wave here in Chicago, which last I checked was in the country you claim has the best health care in the world.
 
Jerome. Wolfman is arguing this:

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

I'm not in favor of absolute government control of our lives. I am equally not in favor of the chaos of a system where it is essentially every man for himself. I'm in favor of balance between government and individual. The medical system you propose -- that every person is responsible for their own health care -- is perhaps okay for those who have the financial means to afford decent health care. But there are tons of people who lack such means, and personally I'd rather see the government stepping in and taking action, rather than see those families -- especially the children -- suffering because ignorant idiots say, "Oh, the government shouldn't get involved."
Click to expand...

Now, what he's saying is this: If you cannot buy your own, the government should help out. A balance between your rights to chose if you can, and government providing a baseline amount of care

I realize you love not reading posts and quote mining, but try, okay?

Originally Posted by Wolfman
No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.
Click to expand...


You are requesting an impossible task. There is no was to quantify quality of care. This request is disingenuous at best.

Please explain why Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket for health-care if the "free" Canadian system has better quality?
Click to expand...

1) The studies exist. Your lack of research is not our problem.

2) Do you have a study that shows a growing trend?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
A government agency does not have the right to arbitrarily take money from live or dead peoples bank accounts.

Where in the world did you get this idea?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? SS is a pool of money that you pay into and get to take money out of when you retire. In some cases, you get to take out more than you put in, and in some you don't. If you die, and then get money paid to your accounts from this pool, I cannot see any reason that the govt should not return that money to the pool.

Its exactly the same scenario if you have to be confined to a nursing home and the govt pays for it. You don't get to "double dip" and get both SS and the additional medical care. The funds are pulled from the shared pool to take care of you.

How is any of that "arbitrary"?

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Yep, I have never had a problem and neither has anyone one I work with or any one I know.
Click to expand...

Then you either don't have children, don't use it much, or are unbelievably lucky. If you have any special medical issues, especially with children, then I can just about promise you that you will run into lots of red tape. One of my children has a medical condition that requires lots of specialists, and bills that will likely run into the hundreds of thousands over the course of several years. I have had to fight red tape with my HMO on and off for months, and this is by far not uncommon.

If you haven't had any problems with your HMO you should count yourself very lucky I assure you.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
A single payer system is making your choices based on what is deemed best for the system not best for you.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what an HMO does right now, there is not an ounce of difference. The only difference between the HMO systems we have right now and single payer is who pays the bill. There are already caps on coverage of both money and services based on purely financial considerations. I fail to see how that is in any way different from single payer.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If everyone payed for their care out of their own pocket; with catastrophic insurance of course, then the cost would dramatically decrease.
Click to expand...

Cost to whom? What about those who cannot get coverage and are routinely denied under the current system? What assumptions are you making to make this statement and what studies back you up?

Medical services do not have to be "catastrophic" to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prescription medications for elderly can cost thousands of dollars a month, but that is only "catastrophic" if they don't get them.

It seems to me you are dramatically simplifying the issues.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
Don't forget it is government regulation that created the system we currently have.
Click to expand...

The system we have now is primarily corporate, with slight govt oversight corrupted by lobbyists. Its primary motivation is profit. At least under a single payer the primary motivation is to break even. The system we have now is broken in many ways, but the primary fault is the enormous number of people who either cannot afford health care or who can afford it but are denied coverage by HMO's.
 
I asked the gnome about this idea of his, earlier. I mean, if it's such a good idea, there's nothing to stop companies offering such policies at the moment? Which ones are doing this and how popular are they?

And then, define "catastrophic". When Morgan Spurlock tried to live, with his fiancee, on the minimum wage/social security, he would probably have managed it but for a couple of relatively minor healthcare requirements. As it was, on their restricted budget, these costs were enough to blow their entire budget.

So, who gets to define catastrophic, who says when a specific occurrence isn't covered, and how do people on low incomes afford even a dose of cystitis?

Rolfe.
 
Is the funny country that Mr GNOME lives in the same one that wants to bring democracy to the World?

Because in the democracy where I live, we the people elect the government to do what we want. And it mostly works. :eye-poppi
 
In another thread someone pointed out that the government are just people like you and me who have stood for election. That's quite right of course. I knew several of the current MSPs before they were elected, and they're just people.

The Gnome hotly denied this. I think to him, government is some sort of big bad bogey, way out of his ken, that has it in for him.

I think somebody was skiving the day they had the civics lessons.

Rolfe.
 
Not wanting really to get into another pointless stubborn match with you, I'll just point out the obvious and then I'm out of here.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
You consider it a simple bureaucratic mistake to declare a live woman dead TWICE and literal theft of her property?
Click to expand...

Inasmuch as no individual person actually stole her money (I presume), yes, it was a stupid bureaucratic error, and perhaps the stupid bureaucrat or two will have some kind of problem over it. How would you score it - satanic greed and pitiless malevalence? "Government run amuk" is about the limit; presumably it will get rectified. There are lots worse things going on in government, business and churches at every level.

A bank checking or savings account is not the same as a credit card account. Besides, if one disputes a credit card transaction the credit card company contacts the retailer for evidence before the funds are transfered. Monies are not transfered without evidence.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll grant that. The SS thought they had the evidence, and they did what they can, evidently do. Of a certainty, the courts and the IRS have the unilateral power to freeze and garnishee your accounts without your permission.

That last, about disputes before the money is transferred is misleading. Anyone who says that they found a transaction on their bill that they didn't execute, even 3 months after the fact, can initiate a chargeback. It happens all the time; as a software vendor, it has happened to me multiple times, even with a declaration of "no refunds" all over the sale. The CC company doesn't ask; they just do it; it doesn't hurt them, after all.

Health funding and insurance has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. You are displaying your ignorance of the subject here.
Click to expand...

My father, who started working a union job in 1935, had a health insurance plan as a benefit. I have essentially the same deal today, except that I contribute into it. The amounts paid in were both based on group underwriting statistics. That is the part that is dead; groups can no longer be counted on to follow underwriters tables, since individuals can find out and act on the knowledge of disease not yet detectable except by genetics, and the insurance company can likewise get a genetic analysis of your blood done and deny insurance based on the results. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

Tata, Jerome. Have fun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom