What is the current Republican position on this?

[Chaos]

I am sure there are charity programs that are not up to par.

How sure are you that any charity programs are up to par?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

deleted duplicate post

Although I am just now realizing how amusing it is that I'm putting all this effort into essentially attempting to argue myself out of a job.

 

[Drachasor]

Under a universal system won't there be similar situations as this one. Won't there be any type of review system to determine if a major treatment is medically necessary (if not fraud will certainly increase). And sometimes won't it be wrong and people will die because they did not get the treatment.

There'd be a review system. Please note that if we had a system similar to other countries but with 20% of the money spent being fraud, it would still be cheaper than what we have now. That's how ridiculously expensive our system is.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, and if the it is a system covering all residents and run by the State, then it saves loads of money. Saving money is a good thing.

We disagree. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone. The policeman's nightstick is not a magic want. The State cannot confer eternal life.

We are all born terminally ill.

This statement has nothing to do with anything. You act like unlimited money means unlimited health. Again, THIS IS NOT TRUE.

That's not my argument at all. Seems to me it's advocates for State-subsidized health care who dream of aggregation of medical care resources and medical decisionmaking. My argument is rather opposite. While the overall expectation of an additional __X__ days of life for a given age cohort or class of patients will increase with the application of an additional __$Y__ dollars worth of resources will increase, the substitution of political judgment for individual judgment will degrade overall social welfare.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That is a really dumb statement.

You say the sweetest things. Give us a kiss (do I have to tell you where?).

We all die, that much is true. But terminal illness has a specific and dire meaning that you are cheapening here in a most unconscionable fashion. We have several people on this board now who are battling what are likely to be terminal illnesses, and I think it is an insult to them to attempt to make their pain, fear, and suffering out to be no big deal.

Go ahead and sell your house to support their care if it means that much to you. I'm not planning to deprive my sister's kids of their share of my assets by dying broke. I was raised in no church. I was a Biology major before I switched to Math. I'm comfortable with death. Individually, it's a tragedy to close friends. Overall, it's inevitable.

 

[Locknar]

Several posts were moved to AAH; please stop the bickering, etc. and stay on topic, be civil/polite, and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

If you feel you post was wrongly moved, you are welcome to PM me, post a question in FM, or file an Appeal.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

oops

 

[bikerdruid]

the terror that the american right has of socialized medicine just never ceases to amaze me.
i really am also astounded at the amount of codswallop they seem to pass of as the reason for their fear.
the united states is certainly the last holdout in the western world.
mind you, many states of those same 'united' states still have the barbarism of capital punishment.
perhaps one day, the u.s. will take its place among civilized nations.
in the meantime, i am certain that i am not the only one who finds great amusement in it all.

 

[Darth Rotor]

deleted duplicate post

Although I am just now realizing how amusing it is that I'm putting all this effort into essentially attempting to argue myself out of a job.

If you do so, we'll be happy to sponsor you here in Texas for a while until you find work here. Let your hubby know that it isn't all that hot, and we are not all on fire.

 

[Darth Rotor]

the terror that the american right has of socialized medicine just never ceases to amaze me.
.

If you have ever had to balance a checkbook, you might understand.

There
Is
No
Free
Lunch

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nope, there isn't. That's why you pay taxes to ensure it isn't,

 

[bikerdruid]

If you have ever had to balance a checkbook, you might understand.

There
Is
No
Free
Lunch

you pay for roads, police, fire protection and military.
nothing is free.
nor is healthcare, but it is at least more vital than the military you use to attack foreign states.

 

[Newtons Bit]

you pat for roads, police, fire protection and military.
nothing is free.
nor is healthcare, but it is at least more vital than military to attack foreign states.

I'm pretty sure military is more vital than healthcare for the attacking of foreign states.

 

[Corsair 115]

If you have ever had to balance a checkbook, you might understand.

Considering the last time the United States balanced its budgetary checkbook was in fiscal year 2001, I don't think it's in a position to lecture anyone on that score. (And I'll just note that Canada has a universal health care system and the federal government had posted numerous consecutive budgetary surpluses prior to the recent recession. So if the idea is that universal health care means budget deficits are likely or even required, there is evidence to the contrary.)

 

[Drachasor]

We disagree. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone. The policeman's nightstick is not a magic want. The State cannot confer eternal life.

Oh, I see, so now you are rejecting the fact other countries have health care systems that cover everyone for far, far less than our system costs? I already backed up this statement to you. Do you have counter evidence or what?

That's not my argument at all. Seems to me it's advocates for State-subsidized health care who dream of aggregation of medical care resources and medical decisionmaking. My argument is rather opposite. While the overall expectation of an additional __X__ days of life for a given age cohort or class of patients will increase with the application of an additional __$Y__ dollars worth of resources will increase, the substitution of political judgment for individual judgment will degrade overall social welfare.

Then stop acting like eternal life is possible. Because no one is saying it is. At best it is a straw man argument. It definitely isn't all that realistic a concern, since only the most outrageously expensive treatments would be in question and they are extremely rare. I mean, can you give an example of something that wouldn't be covered or what a problem would be? Can you show how a state-run system is failing where our current system hasn't failed as well?

And your evidence for this? State-run health care systems all produce populations that LIVE LONGER than what we have in the USA. Where's your evidence for this? Why do you somehow think insurance companies aren't going to try to save money and avoid payments if at all possible?

Reality just doesn't line up with what you are saying here from everything I know -- and I've presented evidence to back up what I am saying. If you have some FACTS to back up your assertions, then present them, because what you are saying doesn't line up with what actually happens.

 

[keale]

Considering the last time the United States balanced its budgetary checkbook was in fiscal year 2001, I don't think it's in a position to lecture anyone on that score. (And I'll just note that Canada has a universal health care system and the federal government had posted numerous consecutive budgetary surpluses prior to the recent recession. So if the idea is that universal health care means budget deficits are likely or even required, there is evidence to the contrary.)

Im sure you know by now there is no amount of factual evidence that will sway someone with a libertarian viewpoint.

 

[Drachasor]

If you have ever had to balance a checkbook, you might understand.

Again, socialized medicine is CHEAPER by leaps and bounds.

If you are interested in balancing checkbooks, then universal health care is what you want. We spend 50% to over 100% more PER CAPITA on health care than other first world countries and our level of care is no better.

 

[joobie]

Was just as childish (IMHO) as his response.

i agree, however that was not the portion i was responding to in the post of mine that you quoted.

 

[BenBurch]

Denials of service do exist. I knew a woman who could have been saved except they ruled that a kidney transplant was an experimental procedure. This was 2003. So, she kept going to the charity hospital for dialysis, but even then they could often not fit her in on time and her condition deteriorated. She did not make it a year past the denial.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Oh, I see, so now you are rejecting the fact other countries have health care systems that cover everyone for far, far less than our system costs? I already backed up this statement to you. Do you have counter evidence or what?

As I wrote before, "evidence" means "from what is seen". Anecdotes, in other words. People in this discussion objected to my evidence, and moderators allowed insults in response. That's tiresome. The world is a pile of anecdotes. From anecdotes (i.e., data) people extract statistics. I have read statistics on wait times to see a doctor and on post-diagnostic success that favor the US. Again, as I wrote before, the taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could provide medical care ("coverage") for the Earth's entire human population if "medical care" means one band-aid and one aspirin per person per year, but the entire Earth's GDP would be insufficient to keep even one person alive forever.

Then stop acting like eternal life is possible. Because no one is saying it is. At best it is a straw man argument. It definitely isn't all that realistic a concern, since only the most outrageously expensive treatments would be in question and they are extremely rare.

I'm not the one promising eternal life. Quite the opposite; I have observed repeatedly that everyone is going to die. So please quit misrepresenting my argument,

I mean, can you give an example of something that wouldn't be covered or what a problem would be?

The question is vague. Lots of problems with control over medical decisionmaking by a remote, rule-bound bureaucracy.

Can you show how a state-run system is failing where our current system hasn't failed as well? And your evidence for this? State-run health care systems all produce populations that LIVE LONGER than what we have in the USA. Where's your evidence for this?

Dunno what "this" refers to. As to the "live longer" part, we've been over this.

In hindsight, lifespans in Hiroshima dropped steeply on 1945-08-06, and it was not because the health care system got worse, relative to previous days or to Kyoto or Yokohama. Lifestyle choices, mostly, and ("NOT", mistakenly omitted) the quality of care make the difference in aggregate longevity between US and, say, Belgium.

Why do you somehow think insurance companies aren't going to try to save money and avoid payments if at all possible?

Same for governments. The State is a bunch of guys with guns. Guns do not make people wiser or more compassionate.

Reality just doesn't line up with what you are saying here from everything I know -- and I've presented evidence to back up what I am saying.

You've presented statistics on expenditures per capita and as a fraction of GDP. These say nothing about the quality of care that medical treatment budgets deliver.