|
Heathcare in your country (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
Healthcare reform has become a the number topic of the Obama administration. Liberals want a single-payer, Canada/Europe-like, national health service. Conservatives want absolutely no government involvement. So, is a national health service really that bad? Is that REALLY the reason Brits have such bad teeth? I just recently had a hospital stay, and it cost me $200 with insurance, for one night of observation, several IV bags, antibiotics, and medical tests. Is that reasonable? Should it have been paid for in full by insurance, private or public? |
If your gf let you smoke pot you wouldn't be getting those chest pains. Just think about how much pot you could have scored for $200 |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Nice non sequiturs you have going there. Deaths occur in healthcare regardless of the nature of the funding behind them. |
Yeah, but deaths in a cyberpunk system are inherently awesome. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I really don't understand how Americans could be possibly discussing this. It's painfully obvious to the rest of the world that a public healthcare system would be preferable, specially if by public we mean "Cyberpunk".
Here's how it works: Every person has a microchip implanted in their brain a few minutes after they're born. This microchip has a number and a superpower. If this baby/kid/person ever needs healthcare, they'll have to fight other to-be-patients in a mortal combat. The winner is allowed to have more computer parts implanted in their body so one day some hypochondriac guy will reach the singularity we all hope for, and he'll rule the United States with a silicon fist!
Yeah!!! |
I was on your side until the whole microchip thing. :stongue: |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
As an uninsured American who could probably greatly benefit from public healthcare, I would vie for full government involvement because it benefits me the most. Is it the best thing for our country? ing I don't know, and I seriously doubt anyone can fully foresee the consequences.
I did encounter a guy in a Target parking lot the other day though: probably 55, aviator sunglasses, big belt buckle, tight jeans, Marines hat, the back end of his hatchback Ford littered with conservative bumper stickers somewhere along the lines of "I SUPPORT GEORGIA" or "I SUPPORT ISRAEL" - you know, anything so long as it's still fighting that evil, communist spread. I'm sure he's the type to introduce himself to new acquaintances with his military rank as well, despite the fact he's been retired for quite some time. Well as he passed me, he mumbled (loudly) "socialism is killing this country". I later realized he was likely spurred to comment by the hammer and sickle on my KMFDM shirt, and that he probably should have been at Wal-Mart instead, but truly - socialism will kill America? That's like admitting his generation completely failed in their war against idealism, whether he realizes it or not. You know, if that type of person were even capable of admitting defeat. But truly - is his America dead? Was his view of it ever even alive? Did it die because it couldn't afford an $87,000 emergency heart transplant due to his insurance rate doubling in anticipation of other employees under his management group using it too much?
A friend of mine had an asthma attack some years back and needed an albuterol inhaler (usually about $30) and about an hour's care worth of oxygen in the ER. $6,000.
If you don't think something needs to drastically change, or that slavery no longer exists in this beautiful country so many fervently believe is worth dying overseas for, it's probably because everything has been provided for you in life, and that the reaches of social provision are merely a few hierarchies closer to your immediate family rather than that oh-so-evil big brother you stymie with the fears of long-buried fathers. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Is health care a right?
By: Walter Williams
March 11, 2010
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
_________________________________
Do steps need to be taken to reduce costs? Yep.
Is it an "entitlement"? F*ck no. Anyone who speaks of the "right" to healthcare is not speaking of a right at all. He is speaking about an arbitrary CLAIM placed over the lives, labor, and property of those expected to satisfy the claims. Nobody is entitled to the time and labor of health care providers any more than they are entitled to a job, a house, a car, food, clothing, or any other finite material asset. This sort of attitude (reminiscent of FDR's "freedom from want" nonsense) is tyrannical bull of the highest order. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. |
I agree. Whoever says security is a right is also an idiot. That being said, I think you guys should dismiss your police force (and the army) and buy more guns. You guys are old enough to take care of yourselves.
Hence why my cyberpunk system rules. |
|
|
| leph555 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I agree. Whoever says security is a right is also an idiot. That being said, I think you guys should dismiss your police force (and the army) and buy more guns. You guys are old enough to take care of yourselves.
Hence why my cyberpunk system rules. |
yea that should work |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Hence why my cyberpunk system rules. |
It's a bad idea!
Haven't you ever heard of closed cyber-shell syndrome? |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Nobody is entitled to the time and labor of health care providers any more than they are entitled to a job, a house, a car, food, clothing, or any other finite material asset. It's tyrannical bull of the highest order. |
Wrong!
See, we're not buying cars or houses or clothing with our taxes.
What we're effectively buying through the tax system is health care. Its already factored into ones budget for the year that I will earn X amount of dollars, the government will take it out of what I earn in taxes and the rest of it I spend on cars, houses and clothing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Is health care a right?
By: Walter Williams
March 11, 2010
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
_________________________________
Do steps need to be taken to reduce costs? Yep.
Is it an "entitlement"? no. Anyone who speaks of the "right" to healthcare is not speaking of a right at all. He is speaking about an arbitrary CLAIM placed over the lives, labor, and property of those expected to satisfy the claims. Nobody is entitled to the time and labor of health care providers any more than they are entitled to a job, a house, a car, food, clothing, or any other finite material asset. This sort of attitude (reminiscent of FDR's "freedom from want" nonsense) is tyrannical bull of the highest order. |
Whether universal healthcare is a “right” or not is completely irrelevant. Its whether it makes good policy. |
|
|
| miamitranceman |
Healthcare is most certainly not a right under our Constitution. But to me, the issue is a moral one. It would say a lot of we as a people chose to cover everyone in the country.
Nevermind the fact that our system as it currently stands, by many estimates, will be financially unsustainable sooner than we think.
I read a story about a $2500 toothbrush charged for in a hospital stay. That pretty much sums up our current system and why it needs to change.
My biggest concern, and maybe it's because I'm from Miami and see it all the time, are the illegals in the country mooching of of it. In the end though, even under our current system, they are getting covered by our public hospitals anyway.
Bottom line, things need to change. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I agree. Whoever says security is a right is also an idiot. That being said, I think you guys should dismiss your police force (and the army) and buy more guns. You guys are old enough to take care of yourselves.
Hence why my cyberpunk system rules. |
Roads and education aren't rights either. The almighty constitution makes no mention of them, therefore all schools are hereby closed and roads are to be demolished immediately. Unless a corporation would like to come along to administer exorbitant fees to use these facilities or byways, thereby confirming our admittedly dated notions of economic freedom and social congruency, to even speak of them is un-American and I shall threaten you with opinion articles until you back down on your insistence! |
|
|
|
|
