"Pay for your own damn healthcare"

[Thunder]

"Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare? Pay for your own damned healthcare".

this is the line I heard, on ABC News last night from a protester last night in DC, that seems to sum up the whole issue for me.

the GOPers who don't want health care simply don't want their own money to pay for the healthcare of other Americans.

have they ever heard of Medicare? I guess not.

have they ever heard of Medicaid? I guess not.

Its very interesting, how the party of Christian values, seems to only care about human beings while they are in the womb.

But once they are out, you are on your own, and you can die on the street for all they care. They don't want one dime of their money to go to help out a fellow American.

Sure, they will pay for wars that kill people, $1 trillion an counting, but money for fellow Americans to pay health care? No way Jose.

This is America..and they are looking out for number one. Everyone else can go scratch.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

The annoying element to me is in the US we already pay the health care of the poor and uninsured. There are laws that prevent emergency rooms from refusing emergency care. Emergency care is by far more expensive than preventative care.

I agree that the US by and large makes poor decisions in regards to health, especially myself. Still, I find the idea of pooling resources for a medical infrastructure to be much more conducive to a healthy and thriving society than our current system. Not every area of the market needs to be socialized but I don't understand the arguements as to why having socialized utilities, transportation, military, law eforcement, parks, education, sporting activities, ect to various degrees is acceptable but increasing the social aspect of health care to be more affordable and more in line with standards of social justice to be reprehensible.

 

[WildCat]

The annoying element to me is in the US we already pay the health care of the poor and uninsured. There are laws that prevent emergency rooms from refusing emergency care. Emergency care is by far more expensive than preventative care.

I agree that the US by and large makes poor decisions in regards to health, especially myself. Still, I find the idea of pooling resources for a medical infrastructure to be much more conducive to a healthy and thriving society than our current system. Not every area of the market needs to be socialized but I don't understand the arguements as to why having socialized utilities, transportation, military, law eforcement, parks, education, sporting activities, ect to various degrees is acceptable but increasing the social aspect of health care to be more affordable and more in line with standards of social justice to be reprehensible.

What makes you think that a UHC system has to be "socialized"?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

The whole system does not have to be socialized. However people are opposed to a socialized system of payments or hell even tax credits as some of the proposals have been. Either way, it is a socialized system and that is the part that inconsistently scares people.

 

[Beerina]

"Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare? Pay for your own damned healthcare".

this is the line I heard, on ABC News last night from a protester last night in DC, that seems to sum up the whole issue for me.

the GOPers who don't want health care simply don't want their own money to pay for the healthcare of other Americans.

Here's a better answer for you, then: Freedom-based capitalism has given rise to more and more medical products every day. This, of course, costs more and more because they are all a different, independent, useful item to buy, not one monolithic thing like a "car" or a "toaster".

There are simply more things to buy. And they're new. So it will all cost more.


This is what freedom-based capitalism gives us. It is wrong to pretend that one can take over all this and lower costs while still maintaining the high rate of introduction of new products. Hundreds of economic experiments involving billions of people over the last century demonstrate this correlation conclusively.

Therefore doing so will be murderous on the scale of really bad guys, compounding like interest on a credit card, as the decades go by.


Don't do it. You will kill millions more than you help, then tens of millions, then hundreds of millions.


Oh, and from this theory, we can make a prediction: Europe, which has socialized medicine, would therefore be lagging where they otherwise would be in introducing new products*.

So please, stop murdering people by the millions. This is not hyperbole. This, of course, burns your ears, so your meme defense mechanism that you "are a good guy with a good heart" will kick in, and you will regurgitate believed falsities like The Government Will Pay For Research To make Up The Difference the way a religious person, when hearing the word "evolution" regurgitates "it's only a theory, intelligent design!" and then sits back, satisfied that they've adequately responded.

The only problem is that that is included in the asterisked study below.




* Which was seen. Someone challenged me on this, so I quickly found on Google a study that showed European drug companies' rate of new product introduction scaled with how controlled their profits were. And, even more embarrassingly for the socialized medicine crowd, the rate of drug introduction of French-based companies was much higher if they sold their products into places like the US than if they just stuck to Europe or France for sales.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

The system doesn't have to socialize the producers of medical technology or products. Socializing how we pay for the military hasn't led to the downfall of the private businessess that make military products.

 

[maddog]

Here's a better answer for you, then: Freedom-based capitalism has given rise to more and more medical products every day. This, of course, costs more and more because they are all a different, independent, useful item to buy, not one monolithic thing like a "car" or a "toaster".

There are simply more things to buy. And they're new. So it will all cost more.


This is what freedom-based capitalism gives us. It is wrong to pretend that one can take over all this and lower costs while still maintaining the high rate of introduction of new products. Hundreds of economic experiments involving billions of people over the last century demonstrate this correlation conclusively.

Therefore doing so will be murderous on the scale of really bad guys, compounding like interest on a credit card, as the decades go by.


Don't do it. You will kill millions more than you help, then tens of millions, then hundreds of millions.


Oh, and from this theory, we can make a prediction: Europe, which has socialized medicine, would therefore be lagging where they otherwise would be in introducing new products*.

So please, stop murdering people by the millions. This is not hyperbole. This, of course, burns your ears, so your meme defense mechanism that you "are a good guy with a good heart" will kick in, and you will regurgitate believed falsities like The Government Will Pay For Research To make Up The Difference the way a religious person, when hearing the word "evolution" regurgitates "it's only a theory, intelligent design!" and then sits back, satisfied that they've adequately responded.

The only problem is that that is included in the asterisked study below.




* Which was seen. Someone challenged me on this, so I quickly found on Google a study that showed European drug companies' rate of new product introduction scaled with how controlled their profits were. And, even more embarrassingly for the socialized medicine crowd, the rate of drug introduction of French-based companies was much higher if they sold their products into places like the US than if they just stuck to Europe or France for sales.

Wins thread!

 

[RosesRoses]

I'm a Canadian citizen. I am more than happy with our universal medical care system. My husband and I are both working professionals and we enjoy a lifestyle the same, or better, as our US counterparts AND have the security of a medical system that is there if we need it.

We are both healthy, so we don't need it much - but we certainly don't begrudge those people who are ill or injured and have access to quality medical care without fearing becoming bankrupt. We think that it makes our society safer and stronger.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

One point I want to bring up. Is rate of new production introduction really the most important metric of a health care system? Personally I find outcomes to be more important than sheer quantity of available products. If product introduction was the defining metric of a successful health care system that would be a strong argruement for eliminating most forms of regulations concerning product introduction.

In a way this may highlight differences in preferences of systems. Using different metrics would result in different systems being preferred.

 

[Psi Baba]

I don't have children. Why should I pay school tax? Pay for your own damn kids' education!

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I didn't own a car until I was 24. Until then "Pay for your own damn roads!"

I've never been mugged. "Pay for your own damn police!"

I didn't vote but I did work before I turned 18. Until then "Pay for your own damn elections!"

I don't play football. "Pay for your own damn arena!"

I'm certain for any social service or program there will be elements of society that do not take direct advantage from it. Which is not the point. Collective bargaining and collective payment comes with certain benefits and detriments. To me some level of socializing health care to encompass all citizens would have a greater benefit to detriment ratio when compared to the current system of partial and poorly funded socialized system in the US.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

* Which was seen. Someone challenged me on this, so I quickly found on Google a study that showed European drug companies' rate of new product introduction scaled with how controlled their profits were. And, even more embarrassingly for the socialized medicine crowd, the rate of drug introduction of French-based companies was much higher if they sold their products into places like the US than if they just stuck to Europe or France for sales.

Freedom based lololand.

Check European health outcomes compared to US health outcomes, and then compare and contrast that with the relative per GDP or per capita expenditures on health.

There are declining returns to capital and drug intensive healthcare (though I like medical technology as much as the next guy).

The big gains to be got in healthcare are not in the next gadget or doohicky but rather are in public health and addressing the underlying factors of health. As someone pointed out, prevention tends to be cheaper than cure, especially when you consider chronic diseases such as diabetes and their growing burden on healthcare in the US and Canada (and elsewhere I'm sure).

The US could probably save billions in healthcare costs if more people used bicycles.

 

[Thunder]

Therefore doing so will be murderous on the scale of really bad guys, compounding like interest on a credit card, as the decades go by.

Don't do it. You will kill millions more than you help, then tens of millions, then hundreds of millions.

So please, stop murdering people by the millions. This is not hyperbole. .

what in the name of God...are you talking about????

my tax dollars pay for the education of children that I do not have. i got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for the health care of old people and poor people I have never met. i got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for wars that I do not agree with, but for the good of the country, I got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for all sorts of things that help people I will never meet, but I got no problem with that.

why do I have no problem with this? Because I am an American, I love my country, and I believe that a healthier, stronger, more prosperous, safer America...is a better America..and worth my money.

...guess GOPers disagree. selfish bastards.

why is that the GOPers flaunt their Christianity non-stop, but Democrats and Liberals are the ones with the Christian values....hmmm?

 

[applecorped]

what in the name of God...are you talking about????

my tax dollars pay for the education of children that I do not have. i got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for the health care of old people and poor people I have never met. i got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for wars that I do not agree with, but for the good of the country, I got no problem with that.

my tax dollars pay for all sorts of things that help people I will never meet, but I got no problem with that.

why do I have no problem with this? Because I am an American, I love my country, and I believe that a healthier, stronger, more prosperous, safer America...is a better America..and worth my money.

...guess GOPers disagree. selfish bastards.

why is that the GOPers flaunt their Christianity non-stop, but Democrats and Liberals are the ones with the Christian values....hmmm?

at what point would you have a problem concerning too much taxes?

 

[Thunder]

at what point would you have a problem concerning too much taxes?

i would feel we are paying too much in taxes when it is clear that are taxes are not being used for necessary or useful services.

i think we should cut Defense spending by 1/3rd and use that money for education, health care, job training, helping clean energy start-ups.

 

[pgwenthold]

"Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare? Pay for your own damned healthcare".

this is the line I heard, on ABC News last night from a protester last night in DC, that seems to sum up the whole issue for me.

the GOPers who don't want health care simply don't want their own money to pay for the healthcare of other Americans.

have they ever heard of Medicare? I guess not.

have they ever heard of Medicaid? I guess not.

You don't even need to go that far! Ever heard of INSURANCE!!!!

The whole basis of insurance is that the costs are shared among a large group. That means that in health insurance, the healthy pay more of the bills of the sick.

I've paid a lot more home insurance in premiums than I ever have to repair my house. That is because my car hasn't suffered a lot of damage. Meanwhile, other people covered by my insurance will have their entire house rebuilt. Guess what? I helped pay for that.

These people are not only anti-government, they are actually anti-insurance.

 

[Rolfe]

Wins thread!

Really?

Beerina has been posting this identical "argument" for a couple of years, now. It's been forensically destroyed time and time again, including in dedicated threads created for him to defend it.

He merely repeats the argument, usually as a drive-by post in a healthcare thread, and seldom sticks around to debate it.

Publicly funded healthcare does not involve nationalisation of drug companies. Countries with universal healthcare systems support medical research. None of the argument makes any sense at all.

The idea simply seems to be that unless the USA goes on paying about twice as much as it needs to for healthcare, medical research worldwide will grind to a halt. Irrespective of the fact that most of the apparent overspend isn't going anywhere near medical research, and that countries with universal healthcare also have thriving medical research fields.

The stuff about "new drug introduction" is pretty irrelevant. Other threads have discussed this in detail, with Beerina only stopping by occasionally to repeat his original assertions. He proposes continuing a system which sees Americans bankrupted and left with nothing after incurring huge medical bills, and in which many people are left without adequate insurance coverage - all suffering that is happening now - on the tenuous grounds that somehow this will help generations as yet unborn.

He has repeatedly failed to substantiate this premise, and I for one an sick and tired of going over the same arguments.

Rolfe.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I think I would be happy to aproximately 60% dependant on the quality of social services provided at that rate. A certain level of waste is acceptable to me in government spending, as it is acceptable in private spending. Also I am willing to concede that just because I am against certain programs that it does not mean they lack value. I will argue for what I consider the best course in spending but I am willing to abide by the consensus of a working government since I am allowed to dissent. Being able to present my side is an important concession in my opinion.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

http://news.therecord.com/Business/article/290285

I'm sure this study has been posted somewhere in one of these threads, but anyways...
'Drug companies spend almost twice as much on marketing and promoting their products than on research and development, says a new study.'

 

[shawmutt]

Oh, and from this theory, we can make a prediction: Europe, which has socialized medicine, would therefore be lagging where they otherwise would be in introducing new products*.

* Which was seen. Someone challenged me on this, so I quickly found on Google a study that showed European drug companies' rate of new product introduction scaled with how controlled their profits were. And, even more embarrassingly for the socialized medicine crowd, the rate of drug introduction of French-based companies was much higher if they sold their products into places like the US than if they just stuck to Europe or France for sales.

This is a bit of a misleading argument. Just because a new drug is produced does not mean it's going to be used. Generic use in the US, according to this study, is very high. The drug market is extremely competitive, and the insurance companies help the generics along by having an unreasonable pay scale for generics vs. name brand.

Bottom line, this argument is not a very good indicator of the health of a country's health system.

The problem with getting the UHC message known is lack of education. The government, as the government is wont to do, does a terrible job of this. Where are the nifty flash movies? Where are the brief presentations? There has to be a way to condense the info into stuff easily understood by a fifth grade reading level. The other issue is old people. They aren't as techno savvy as us younger folks. The still need news and TV commercials.

I have the distinct feeling that the lack of such dumbed-down information comes from the lack of direction at Washington. Too many chiefs and not enough indians--