Sick people should be protected. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s my moral stance.

It’s rather well documented on this site and elsewhere that I am one of those “sick people”. I was born with health problems and will die with them. I am a sick person. I am who you are talking about.

I need you to listen to me very carefully right now. I DO NOT WANT YOUR HELP. I don’t want it. I have never wanted it and will never want it. You feel it is your moral duty to take care of people like me, but MANY, MANY PEOPLE LIKE ME DO NOT WANT YOUR HELP. We want to be independent, self-reliant, free. In fact, it’s vital to me that I be as independent, self-reliant, and free as I can.

I don’t want you in my health business insisting that it is your duty to take care of me. It isn’t. It’s MY duty to take care of me. And if I need help… I’ll ask for it. And frankly, I’m rather insulted that you feel it’s your right to come in and interfere in my life or the lives of any “sick people”. Why don’t you start asking the “sick people” in your life how many of them want universal health care? The answer will probably shock you. I know a great many “sick people” and I’ve yet to meet ONE that would welcome this type of legislation. The only people I meet that want universal health care are the ones who DON’T need it.

Stop attempting to drown me in your morality. If you feel the duty to take care of the sick, volunteer at a hospital. Donate to charity. Take care of the elderly. But DO NOT assume that we “sick people” need you and your morality to come and save us from ourselves. We don’t. Believe it or not, most of us would rather you just left us alone.

I realize that this is probably coming out sharper and angrier than I’m intending it to, and I apologize for that. It’s very hard for me to remain calm and rational about this subject for reasons that should be very obvious. This is why you won’t find me in most health care debates, especially on this site. But your statement about your moral duty to sick people really hit me hard and I felt the need to respond. I don’t mean to sound like an arrogant hot-head, but it’s really, really hard to hear someone say things like that about you and the class of people into which you fall and *not* get emotional.

Please take a moment and really think about what I’m trying to say here. I know it could be written more eloquently, but the song would remain the same. So please just listen and understand - what you see as help I see as intrusion, invasion, and the loss of my individual rights and freedoms. Try to think about this from my position and understand why what you’ve been writing is so patently wrong to me.

That’s all I can ask.

Because we aren’t socialists.

Then why do you advocate socializing medicine?  Are you a part time socialist?

We don’t like major freedom intrusions.

Yet you advocate doing just that with socialized medicine.

(And frankly, ANY intrusion into my freedom is “major.")

Actually all care, under any system, is rationed. There is no way around it.

Oh?  Is there anything in the US today that one cannot get in the way of health care immediately or almost immediately?  There is no rationing in the current system and frankly, I know you don’t believe that there is.

Some are essential, and should be available to all. Police, firedepartments, national defence, judicial systems, major infrastructure, are all examples of such, which most people seem to agree on.

I agree.  Now get a copy of the Constitution and see that those services are codified.  Healthcare is not. 

I have told you why.

You have said that “you believe” and “you think.” You tried saying that it would be cheaper, but the CBO and a host of other studies disagree with you.  You said there wouldn’t be rationing, but once again the CBO and others don’t agree with you. 

You just don’t agree with me. Sick people should be protected.

Protect them from what?  Themselves?  Who are you or who is anyone to say that the breaths that I breathe are not mine and mine alone?  Under the Declaration of Independance and the Consitutition you have absolutely no right to inhibit my rights to life, to pursue happiness (defined by the founders as “property") and to work hard to obtain a better life for me and my family.  Who are you (or anyone in the government) to say that I must support someone else at the point of a gun, musket, sword or threat of jail?

If anything, that is a moral choice that I make.  It is not a choice that the government foists on people. 

So don’t nationalise it then.

You haven’t been following closely, have you?

That’s not a necessity. Choose a private system, like the one you have today.

Nope.  You haven’t been following this discussion at all.

Just add a safety net for the un-insured.

Excuse me.  I am just going to walk over here and bang my head against a wall with the signs that say “Medicaid” and “Medicare” on them. 

I’ll be back soon.  (insert heavy sigh here)

While you are doing that, you could use the opportunity to lower costs significantly, without degrading the quality of care. There seems to be plenty of financial room for that.

With a slight headache, I now present you with the official “you believe in the conservative position on the HealthCare Debate” membership card.

Dealing with the health care issues by allowing companies to compete across state lines, tort reform, actual cost billing, an end to the AMA billing code monopoly, etc would work.  We want to see aggressive government crackdowns on waste.  We want doctors, lawyer, butchers, bakers, indian chiefs, fake and fake patients that falsify claims to pay restitution back into the system and go to jail.  We want the freedom to choose what we know is best for us and out loved ones.  We know the people in DC don’t care about us personally.  They care about us as needing to be protected, coddled, and our decisions made for us.  We want to raise Americans and not dependent whiners.  That is what some of us are fighting for.

We’ll have to add “Space Flight” to the list of things that private industry does better than government.

Space Tourism

I don’ think that the US government is too worried about “space tourism.”

The Space Program is one of those things that despite being wasteful (because of governmental controls) and full of fraud (because of corporate theft) works rather well.  Most people can’t go a minute without touching something in their lives that was developed for or by the space program. 

The real problem comes in with leadership.  The director of NASA is not allowed to lead.  He is summoned periodically to Washington to discuss and answer to the rats sitting there.  In the meantime, the rats fund 15 different boards, committees, study groups and hearings on where NASA should go. 

The shuttle had the chance to be great until politicians started getting involved.  Instead of the great vehicle it started out as, it became a camel.  )A camel is a cow designed by committee.) Instead of doing three or four things really well, the shuttle ended up doing 5 or 6 things, and none of them well. 

Guys who work on the shuttle program here (yes, “here” is the East Coast of Central Florida) talk all the time about red tape in getting a screw replaced.  On a door.  In an office.  It’s incredible.  A lot of these guys just fix it themselves.  It isn’t worth the 5 hours of paperwork for a 50 cent screw. 

And this is another thing that is troubling about the nationalized health care proposals.  I have too many friends that work within the system who know what reality is.  I’ve submitted and won contracts with the government.  It takes forever to get paid. 

Health care, like the space programs, will be used for political gains.  The Johnson Space Center isn’t in Texas because it was the best place for it.  It is there because Lyndon Johnson wanted something in return for his support of the program, and that something had better have had his name on it. 

The health care system will be the same.  It will be “give me your vote and I’ll see you get this.”

DonnaK

Healthcare sometimes is a difficult subject to debate. Even when you try not to personalise things, it often gets personal. I know you are directly effected and that it’s not just another subject to you. Nor is it for me.

I hope you understand that I have never meant to downplay your personal situation in any way. I have nothing but respect for any people who fight through illness.

Anyway. I am trying to show some perspective. Universal healthcare does not need to be bad. It can be excellent. It can be as good or better than private. It can have less waste. It can be cheaper. Government involvement does not equal bad. Just as private involvement does not equal bad. It depends on how the system is set up.

I view healthcare as a fundamental right. I want society to be involved somehow. Not because I am a socialist, but because I want the access guaranteed to 100 percent. The entire population should be covered. Always, with zero exceptions. It is as important to me as national defense is. Perhaps more important.

Just to illustrate my point regarding good or bad. Below stated are sometimes true.

Public healthcare can offer:
- A choice between hundreds of doctors and hospitals.
- Access to the most expensive and effective drugs there is.
- Get specialist care abroad.

Just as private care can offer:
- Rationed care, because the insurance company has not approved a specific drug.
- Only access to hospitals/doctors the insurance company have contracted.
- A myriad of loopholes allowing insurance companies to view a condition as not covered.

Some of this is getting a bit old. I’ll check what happens here, but I am not sure we need to go further, to establish that we disagree. Anyway…

Then why do you advocate socializing medicine?  Are you a part time socialist?

Well, if you say so.

Oh?  Is there anything in the US today that one cannot get in the way of health care immediately or almost immediately?  There is no rationing in the current system and frankly, I know you don’t believe that there is.

The US system is plenty rationed. By insurance companies. And by hospital boards.

I agree.  Now get a copy of the Constitution and see that those services are codified.  Healthcare is not.

I understand that your constitution is important to you. To me it isn’t. I think that the topic at hand is more interesting. Atleast as this thread stands.

You have said that “you believe” and “you think.” You tried saying that it would be cheaper, but the CBO and a host of other studies disagree with you.  You said there wouldn’t be rationing, but once again the CBO and others don’t agree with you.

The CBO has offered nothing but cost estimates of current bills. They nor agree or disagree with me.

Protect them from what?  Themselves?  Who are you or who is anyone to say that the breaths that I breathe are not mine and mine alone?  Under the Declaration of Independance and the Consitutition you have absolutely no right to inhibit my rights to life, to pursue happiness (defined by the founders as “property") and to work hard to obtain a better life for me and my family.  Who are you (or anyone in the government) to say that I must support someone else at the point of a gun, musket, sword or threat of jail?

Dramatic stuff. I just want people to pay taxes for some basic services. For schools even if they don’t use them. For roads even if they don’t use them. Fpr police police even they don’t use them. For libraries even if they don’t use them. For healtcare even if they don’t use them.

You haven’t been following closely, have you?

Nope.  You haven’t been following this discussion at all.

Excuse me.  I am just going to walk over here and bang my head against a wall with the signs that say “Medicaid” and “Medicare” on them.

With a slight headache, I now present you with the official “you believe in the conservative position on the HealthCare Debate” membership card.

Clever, or not really.

The private solutions I was talking about (Switzerland, Japan), are private, but they cover everybody. They do so because the insurance companies are forced to provide everybody with basic coverage. If someone still could not afford it, the government picks up the insurance tab.

Kimpost-

How is taking money from me by force going to guarantee me access to a doctor? Even when my wife had dental coverage, she had to drive five hours to see a dentist.

Coverage doesn’t equal access.

Come up with a system that will guarantee everyone access to a doctor for a reasonable price, and I’ll listen. I don’t believe that the government has the answers. Medicare, social security, FEMA, the U.S. Department of Education, and all the other “essential” government programs are proof enough to me that the government can’t handle it.

Even in Maine, Dirigo Care is a colossal failure. I haven’t seen a social program yet that does what it’s supposed to do for the price they say it’s supposed to cost.

The US system is plenty rationed. By insurance companies. And by hospital boards.

This is why discussing subjects with people is so difficult.  “Rationing” is not what you feel it is.  “Rationing” is having a limited number of something and then apportioning that limited number out to people.

I believe that you are trying to make the claim that hospitals and insurance companies turn down people for procedures for which they are not covered is the same as rationing. 

It is not. 

I understand that your constitution is important to you. To me it isn’t. I think that the topic at hand is more interesting. Atleast as this thread stands.

This thread can exist because of the Constitution.  Your right to speak your mind without interference on this is because of the Constitution.  The freedom to practice or not practice your religion is based on the Constitution.  The right to walk down the street without being mugged, robbed, beaten up, raped and left for dead is because of the Constitution. 

Your blithe dismissal of the very document on which the country was founder - on which the President, the Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the entire military swear an oath to is troubling.

The CBO has offered nothing but cost estimates of current bills. They nor agree or disagree with me.

Hmmm.... you might want to rethink that.

The current Pelosi Plan:

For starters, the (Democrat) bill is a lot more expensive than advertised. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pegs its cost at $1.055 trillion over 10 years, not the $894 billion Mrs. Pelosi claims. Politico reports that “the legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years” by front-loading revenue and benefit cuts and back-loading costs. The real cost, according to a Republican House Budget Committee report, could be $2.4 trillion for its first decade of operation.
Source

And the Republican Plan:

The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.
Source

Both analysis are available at the www.cbo.gov if you actually wish to read them. 

Dramatic stuff. I just want people to pay taxes for some basic services.

I understand that is what you want.  I want something different.  The main problem this discussion is having is that while I keep trying to bring facts and figures into it, your response is “I want it.”

“I want” is not an argument. 

For schools even if they don’t use them. For roads even if they don’t use them. Fpr police police even they don’t use them. For libraries even if they don’t use them. For healtcare even if they don’t use them.

It is not a matter of “use,” it is a matter of law.  Roads are mandated by the Constitution.  Police are mandated by local codes, under authority recognized by the Constitution.  Same thing with libraries. 

Health care is different.  There is no provision in the Constitution for it.  Now I know you don’t care about that, but 300 million other people in this country do.  Countless have died defending it and frankly your dismissal of it because you “want something” pisses me off. 

It is Government 101 stuff.  If it isn’t in the Constitution, the Federal government, in spite of the people “wanting” something like you, can’t do it. 

The private solutions I was talking about (Switzerland, Japan), are private, but they cover everybody. 

First, the Japanese and Swiss solutions are not private, they are a combination of private, governmental and governmental subsidies.

Secondly, both systems are under tremendous strain right now and need overhauling and or huge influx of cash.  (That would be “tax money.") For example, both systems have huge shortages of beds in the ER, and because they do, they routinely turn people away.  Seventy five percent of Japanese visiting a hospital for care were turned away at least three times in the last year.  (In case you are wondering, that is rationing.)

(The result is a great drop in levels of care.  In the US, for example, a person is more than two times more likely to have a heart attack than in Japan.  That is the good news.  The bad news is that once you have that heart attack, you are twice as likely to die from it than in the US.  Another interesting point is that while many claim that high health costs drive people into bankruptcy.  The figures don’t really support that claim, but in Japan they don’t have that issue as much.  You see, Japan has twice the rate of suicide than the US.  The number one reason given for committing suicide?  You guessed it!  Health care costs.)

Both systems cap costs and payment fees.  As a result, the best and the brightest minds are not going into medicine in either country and there is a shortage of GP’s and specialists in both countries.  Long lines and waits are common in both countries.  To be honest, I believe some waits would be acceptable to most Americans if costs were lower, but in Japan an Switzerland, despite paying more in taxes to support the system, citizens pay more out of pocket as well.

However, both plans depend greatly upon the definition of “basic.” That is what you want, right?  Coverage for “basic” health care needs? 

Define “basic.”

Does that definition include seeing a specialist if you have an issue that a GP cannot diagnose?  (It isn’t covered in Japan.) Chemotherapy covered?  Bone marrow transplants?  How about transplants?  Certainly the transplanting of one organ is fairly common and you may consider it “basic.” How about two organs, such as a heart and lung transplant?  Or the “triple play” of “heart / lungs / liver?” Is that part of your idea of “basic?” How about a hip replacement?  Is that basic? 

To me, “basic” is what MD’s used to do in their offices.  Got a cut?  Basic.  Need a physical?  Basic.  “Normal” pregnancy?  Basic.  Need a specialist?  That’s not basic. 

But that’s my opinion. 

To see that there is such great disagreement in what is “basic,” one only need look at Massachusetts and “Romney Care.” This was supposed to be the role model for the rest of the states.  Many people were watching this closely and still are. 

There aren’t too many people that think that the program has been a huge success.  The state is crippled under the created debt and doesn’t have a way of getting out other than to tax and charge more for less.  The result is that more of the middle class is having to subsidize the program and the higher costs are moving more people into a bracket where they cannot help pay for it.  No economic model wanting to spread costs ever likes to see a contracting payee base and expanding costs.  It doesn’t work. 

Yet the really interesting thing is that with Romney Care, “basics” have been expanded to include acupuncture.  Not exactly traditional and many would say not basic.  Doesn’t matter.  It’s defined as “basic” now.  Of course, if you don’t like acupuncture, you can go to a homeopathy specialist for home remedies.  None are licensed or required license in the state, but their skills are considered “basic.” If they fail you, you can go to an aroma therapist.  Their services are covered as well.

Romney Care illustrates the point that no matter what, the definition of “basic” care is not going to be the same.  It is not going to hinge on what is actually “basic care,” but what lobbyist can get in the Congressman’s door.

This does not mean that there is not some merit in both the Swiss and the Japanese systems.  They are not, however, anywhere close to the utopia of health care you believe they are.  We can take bits and pieces from lots of different plans, but the plans that are in front of the Congress and the American people are not worthy to be placed in a bed pan.

I believe that you are trying to make the claim that hospitals and insurance companies turn down people for procedures for which they are not covered is the same as rationing.

I am telling you that what you would call real rationing happens in in US now. Let’s say you are fully covered for cancer. Let’s say that there is a new treatment out there, matching the following:

1. This new treatment is extremely expensive (USD 1.000.000) for a full treatment)
2. The treatment is only 5% better than other, cheaper treatments ( USD 5.000 for a full treatment).

If a hospital or an insurance company goes for the cheaper treatment in above example, then there is rationing. Agreed? This happens every day.

Your blithe dismissal of the very document on which the country was founder - on which the President, the Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the entire military swear an oath to is troubling.

I’m not dismissing the constitution. I’m just dismissing that part of this discussion. Others can go that route.

Hmmm.... you might want to rethink that.

No, I know what they have looked at. I’m saying that I have nothing to do with any particular bill. The CBO has not talked about cost for universal healthcare in general, which is
what I am advocating.

I understand that is what you want.  I want something different.  The main problem this discussion is having is that while I keep trying to bring facts and figures into it, your response is “I want it.”

“I want” is not an argument.

Facts and figures? This passage was dealing with morality. Our opinions on morality, to be specific. Constitutional facts or whatever you might be referring to here are irrelevant in that regard.

Government 101 stuff.

If you are correct about universal healthcare being un-constitutional (I presume this is regardless of how it is formed), you won’t even risk to see one now will you? Atleast not without ammendments.

First, the Japanese and Swiss solutions are not private, they are a combination of private, governmental and governmental subsidies.

Secondly, both systems are under tremendous strain right now and need overhauling and or huge influx of cash.  (That would be “tax money.")

Both systems need additional tax money and/or higher premiums. Especially Japan does. Raising taxes or premiums is not very popular, though. Which is why it hasn’t happened yet. I would advice them to do it as soon as possible. ;)

‘Basic care’ is subject for discussion.
I would say that ‘everything’ should be included, except maybe for dental, optical and cosmetiq surgery for vanity reasons.

I never stated that Japan or Switzerland were flawless. They have plenty of problems. I took them as examples of systems that have some similarities with yours.

If current proposals are crap, by all means - scrap them. I would however advice people to become pro-active, instead of just saying no. I feel that the republicans now are busy saying no, instead of presenting bills of their own. Playing politics might get you re-elected, but I’m not sure that it is very fruitful.

If a hospital or an insurance company goes for the cheaper treatment in above example, then there is rationing. Agreed? This happens every day.

No.  That is not rationing.  That is not even close to rationing.  Rationing would be the government saying “we have 5 doses of “treatment x” and 10 people who need them.  You.... you.... you..... you ... and you get the treatment.”

THAT is rationing. 

I’m not dismissing the constitution. I’m just dismissing that part of this discussion. Others can go that route. 

How convenient.  Just “dismiss” the things that disagree with you.  When one talks about health care - especially the far reaching health care plan you want to bring into the this world - all aspects of the plan have to be discussed.  The 500 pound gorilla is in the room and on his head there is a tattoo that reads “We the people....”

No, I know what they have looked at. I’m saying that I have nothing to do with any particular bill. The CBO has not talked about cost for universal healthcare in general, which is
what I am advocating.

In other words, you have no real plans, no real ideas other than what you “want,” and no concrete solutions other than the ambiguous “universal health care.”

That being the case, prove the statement that you made of “US could afford it, and save money doing it.”

That was you, right?  You put forth the idea that everything would be better and cheaper.

Prove it.  Cite a study that we can all read or look at that agrees with you.  Certainly no bills proposed so far have done it.  Real world experience has not done it either.

Prove your assertion.

Facts and figures? This passage was dealing with morality. Our opinions on morality, to be specific. Constitutional facts or whatever you might be referring to here are irrelevant in that regard.

I hate to tell you this, but morality is reflected in the laws of the land.  In this case, the morality of the people of the United States in regards to the duties and responsibilities of the Federal Government are reflected in the Constitution. 

Both systems need additional tax money and/or higher premiums. Especially Japan does. Raising taxes or premiums is not very popular, though. Which is why it hasn’t happened yet. I would advice them to do it as soon as possible. ;)

I know that you are trying to be cute in saying “raise taxes,” but I suspect that you would support raising taxes to continue to support a system that is flawed. 

Just so we are clear, let’s review your position here.  You want to sell the idea of universal health care on people and even if they don’t use it, they should still pay for it.  Now you want to tell those same people, “it is going to cost you more to not use the health care system.”

Do you really think that makes sense?

‘Basic care’ is subject for discussion.

So you just want people to buy into a program without defining it?  Do you grocery shop often and buy “bag o’ stuff” that you have no idea what the bag contains?

I would say that ‘everything’ should be included, except maybe for dental, optical and cosmetiq surgery for vanity reasons.

You do realize, of course, the that most used parts of a health care plan are the dental and optical parts, right? 

Oh, and as far as “cosmetiq” (sic) surgery, did you know that in Europe, medical and health care costs have risen faster - much faster - than inflation.  The only exception are cosmetic surgery.  Cosmetic surgery is not covered under the health care plans and so there is no government intervention.  Competition keeps the costs lower and services levels high. 

It is inescapable that government intervention and control increases costs without a return on the investment.  Since 1965 (the first year of Medicare and Medicaid) almost 90% of all cost increases in those programs have come because of the government interfering with the market. 

I took them as examples of systems that have some similarities with yours.

And yet they don’t work.  According to your logic, the 1970 Pinto without an engine is the same as a BMW 6 Series on the highway.  After all, they are both similar in that that are cars.

I would however advice people to become pro-active, instead of just saying no.

First, saying “no” is often enough.  I do agree that the right needs to explain the rational behind the rejection of health care proposals and they have done that. 

What has happened after that is two fold.  First, the media seldom reports on the “why.” More importantly, people such as yourself as so locked into perceptions that they won’t hear anything other than what they want to hear.  They won’t hear the reasons.  They won’t hear any logical or rational reasons for saying “no.”

They just won’t listen.

How do I know that?

You wrote:

I feel that the republicans now are busy saying no, instead of presenting bills of their own.

You disregarded HR 3962.  We discussed it briefly earlier, but it seems that you are so locked into what you want and what you perceive, that you completely ignored it.  You want Republicans to put forth proposals, and yet when they do, you act as if they don’t exist.  If you ignored what was in this thread, it is no wonder that you missed critical amendments that were offered by the Republicans and defeated by Democrats.  Such amendments included verification for US citizens.  (Defeated.) No funds for abortions.  (Defeated.) Some semblance of tort reform.  (Defeated.) Selling insurance across state lines.  (Defeated.) Transparency to the bureaucrats that make the decisions on what procedures are approved under the plan.  (Defeated.)

It goes on and on and on.

“We want health care” is a catchy slogan, but it doesn’t get anything done.

Gitarcaver....

I really think I love you. I couldn’t have said it all better if I tried. :)

Definition of rationing
I’m surprised to see your narrow text book definition of rationing. I guess a positive thing coming from that is that you just made rationing rare - under any system. Organ transplants might still fit, in US and elsewhere?

Constitution
It’s just that this is one of those things that almost never happens outside US. Constant referrals to the law of the land regarding each and every topic. Sometimes bringing the constitution into a debate is warranted, but other times the issue is brought to the table without nobody asking for it. I’m not saying that you did. I’m just saying that I, in this particular instance, would rather stick to the issue of universal healthcare itself. I’m not that interested in what the founding faders would have thought about it. Others may be, and that’s perfectly fine.

About affordability
I can’t prove undefined plans. My affordability claim is merely based on the cost of your healthcare system today. Your system is by far the most expensive one, yet very few people, believe it to be the best of the lot.

Regading morality
Law is society’s form of morality. But there’s personal morality too.

Raising taxes/premiums & making sense
Japan’s healthcare system’s biggest flaw is underfunding. It is too cheap. The need to spend more per capita to fix it. So either raise taxes and/or premiums, or move tax money from other areas to fix the problem.

I have no major issues with asking people to contribute with tax money for services they don’t personally use. It even makes sense to me.

Basic care
I would like to see a definition in any proposed bill, before I voted for it. I would however accept that the definition would change over time. Adding and removing services to/from the list would be expected.

Japan, Switzerland
Their systems are fully operational. They work. They have flaws, as all systems do. I would suggest that their flaws are smaller than the flaws in the US system. But that’s just an opinion (arguably an opinion shared by many organisations, but still just an opinion).

Republican healthcare bills
3962 misses to address the un-insured. That’s my major beef with it. Millions of un-insured need some kind of protection. Having said that 3962 certainly seems better than what’s in place today. It deals with pre-existing conditions.

TORT reform is a generally speaking a smaller deal (finanicially) than people think. But I’m probably for it. Abortions should be covered based on that the procedure is legal (abortion is another one of those US issue, which sometimes are difficult for us Euros to grasp).

I’m surprised to see your narrow text book definition of rationing.

I wasn’t surprised that you didn’t know what rationing actually meant and were trying to change the definition. 

I guess a positive thing coming from that is that you just made rationing rare - under any system.

It isn’t rare under socialized systems at all.  That is what you are missing.  In the two systems you seem to like, they both have massive shortages and must ration beds, medicines, procedures, and medical personnel.  Just because you close your eyes doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

It’s just that this is one of those things that almost never happens outside US.

Don’t think that we in the US haven’t noticed that lack of commitments to laws and treaties from the other side of the pond.  It says more about us that we are a nation of laws than it says about other systems.

I’m just saying that I, in this particular instance, would rather stick to the issue of universal healthcare itself. 

What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that one cannot discuss universal health care in the US without talking about the Constitution.  You have to deal with the law of the land. 

I can’t prove undefined plans. My affordability claim is merely based on the cost of your healthcare system today.

So your statement was false.  We here in the states call that “a lie.” In any argument and discussion, credibility is a major issue. 

Your system is by far the most expensive one, yet very few people, believe it to be the best of the lot.

“Best of the lot” in what regard?  I am a firm believer in that health care should be judged on outcomes.  If that is the criteria, then the US is the best in the world.  If you want to throw in things that have nothing to do with the quality of health care itself (as the WHO does) we are further down the pack.  One must ask themselves what is more important?  The quality of care?  Or the way that care is procured?  If you value outcomes, this is the place for you.  If you value higher taxes to pay for a lesser quality outcome, other countries are for you.

Law is society’s form of morality. But there’s personal morality too.

That is correct.  Yet you are the one confusing the two.  Society’s morals are defined in our laws.  Personnel morals are defined in the hearts and actions of individuals.  Generally speaking, society has no moral justification - (societal or personnel) to trample the morals of an individual.  Yet that is what you believe in.  You have that right to believe that.  I also have the right to tell you that your morals do not affect or apply to me. 

So either raise taxes and/or premiums, or move tax money from other areas to fix the problem.

Okay.  Let me say this so that even you can understand.

There.

Is.

No. 

More.

Money.

Got it now?  After awhile the tank runs dry.  You can’t say “hey!  This can be made better by throwing more money at it!” After large wasteful programs within every government, no one believes that throwing more money is the solution to every problem.  Most people (that aren’t politicians) after awhile say “maybe instead of throwing more money down the drain we should look at the system.” For some reason, that logic and economic sense eludes you.

I would however accept that the definition would change over time. Adding and removing services to/from the list would be expected.

You can expect all you want.  It ain’t gonna happen.  Once an item is on the list, it will stay there forever.  Don’t believe me?  Every state and every country has laws on their books that are “weird” and outdated.  In my state, for example, you can’t ride an alligator naked on Sunday while drinking.  Think that law needs to be updated?  Yet it is still on the books.

(In England, young men are required to take two hours of training a day in the use of a longbow and that training must be supervised by a member of the clergy.  In Belgium, it is illegal for a woman to be over 5 feet, 6” tall or 1.68 meters)

I would suggest that their flaws are smaller than the flaws in the US system.

If they work, then why do they need massive increases in funding to the point where both countries are looking to the US for places to do more privatization of health care?  Yes, they work, but do they work well enough to be transplanted here?  Probably not. 

Republican healthcare bills

Sorry, but you don’t get to come into this and start commenting on that which you claim didn’t exist.  You falsely accused Republicans of not having plans and now that your misrepresentation has been exposed, you want to kick them around.

The first issue of not understanding “rationing” was odd, but not a major incident.  Claiming that you were sure that costs would be lower and quality would rise without being able to prove it makes one leery concerning your knowledge and integrity in discussing health care.  Now the deliberate skipping of known facts on order to cast aspersions on others illustrates a pattern of intellectual dishonesty. 

It would have been really easy for you to say “I didn’t know about those bills,” or “I forgot about the bills and was wrong about the Republicans not putting forth plans.” You could have even just said “I’m sorry - I had a brain fart.”

Instead, you want to go merrily skipping down the road with a huge PollyAnna smile on your face and shouting to all that will listen in the land of Utopia, “Free Healthcare for ALL!!!”

The rest of us, on the other hand, will continue to work to pay for programs that you propose and on the days when we are off, we will fight, kick, shout, and confront deceptions and ignorance of the type you have displayed. 

That being said, you talk a great deal about “personnel morals.” In fact, you whole stance on health care seems to be centered around it. 

Do your “personnel morals” allow for deception?  For ignorance?  For what one book of faith calls “bearing a false witness?” Do your morals not call that you be accountable for your actions?

If the answer to any of the above questions is “no,” then I can say categorically that the morals you wish to foist on others are not the morals I want to be around, much less be subject to. 

The ball is in your court now. 

I look forward to seeing your morals in action.

I can’t get into my thick scull why DonnaK thinks highly of you. You are clearly an ass. Why do you purposely misrepresent what I say?

I wasn’t surprised that you didn’t know what rationing actually meant and were trying to change the definition.

Like I said. You are an asshole. I suspect that you know that I know the difference. You on the the other hand have, quite absurdely, stated that there is no rationing in the US. Am I calling you a liar for that? No I am not. Because I’m not an asshole, as you are.

Don’t think that we in the US haven’t noticed that lack of commitments to laws and treaties from the other side of the pond.  It says more about us that we are a nation of laws than it says about other systems.

Bla bla bla. Again, an asshole. And untrue. If anything, most stats indicate that we are more law abiding in Europe than you are US. If I were an asshole I would call you a liar, but I don’t.

So your statement was false.  We here in the states call that “a lie.” In any argument and discussion, credibility is a major issue.

You are being an idiot in almost every sentence now. I have not lied. I made a statement regarding cost and outcome. It was my opinion. And my opinion was based on US costs under the current system. Basically; You get shit and pay double what others industrialised nations do.

If you value outcomes, this is the place for you.  If you value higher taxes to pay for a lesser quality outcome, other countries are for you.

Seriously? This is how you try to get your point through? If you value high infant mortality rates, US is the country for you. If you don’t, other contries might be better. If you value millions of people having no access to care, then US is the country for you. If you value that millions of people every year file for bankruptsy because of their medical bills, US is the country for you. If you value short life, then US is a country for you.

Generally speaking, society has no moral justification - (societal or personnel) to trample the morals of an individual.  Yet that is what you believe in.

Asshole. I’m sure that neither of us wish to trample the morals of individuals. Freedom is important, yet we have laws then in some areas limit peoples freedoms. We also have societal entitlements. In essence this might lead to more individual freedoms. To see this you will have to be honest enough to acknowledge the bigger picture. And you really should stop painting everyting in black or white.

After large wasteful programs within every government, no one believes that throwing more money is the solution to every problem.

Sometimes a program needs fixing. And sometimes they need additional funding. Often it’s a mix. Nobody wants to throw money onto problems. Nobody likes waste.

You can expect all you want.  It ain’t gonna happen.  Once an item is on the list, it will stay there forever.  Don’t believe me?  Every state and every country has laws on their books that are “weird” and outdated.  In my state, for example, you can’t ride an alligator naked on Sunday while drinking.  Think that law needs to be updated?  Yet it is still on the books.

Laws change all the time. Priorities go the same route. Entitlements can be given and they can be repelled. I predict that you will reform social security within the next 20 years or so. Most other countries have.

Sorry, but you don’t get to come into this and start commenting on that which you claim didn’t exist.  You falsely accused Republicans of not having plans and now that your misrepresentation has been exposed, you want to kick them around.

You don’t know me at all. You asume that I am lying when I am clearly not. Making broad statements is not the same as lying. You know it, but you choose to be an asshole. Why?

Let’s just say that I don’t think that republicans are or have been pro-active enough. I have not yet seen a republican equivalent of Obama- or Hillarycare. 3962 is just a reaction. McCain had a plan during the presidential campaign (apparently he’s still sticking by it). He too, only reacted to Hillarys, Edwards and Obamas plans. And now, when you watch the news, as I do, you rarely see actual suggestions. You see plenty of nay-sayers, though.

Gitarcaver....

I really think I love you. I couldn’t have said it all better if I tried. :)

You know what, DonnaK?

I think you could have said it much better…

I suspect that you know that I know the difference.

Then why do you give examples of what you consider “rationing” that are clearly not rationing?

You on the the other hand have, quite absurdely, stated that there is no rationing in the US.

This is the problem.  Under your definition, there might be rationing.  But your definition is not accurate or the accepted definition in the health care debate.  You continue to want to the word to mean something that it does not.

If anything, most stats indicate that we are more law abiding in Europe than you are US.

You might want to examine that again.  Most studies show that crimes in Europe are underreported.  Extremely underreported.  That means that there are lots of crimes going on, but no one writes them down. 

I have not lied. I made a statement regarding cost and outcome. It was my opinion. And my opinion was based on US costs under the current system.

If you had said it was your opinion, that would be fine.  However, you didn’t.  As has been pointed out several times, there is no evidence to support your statement.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.

If you value high infant mortality rates, US is the country for you.

Actually, I don’t value high mortality rates which is why the US is the place to be.  The problem that you are trying to address is not that there is a high rate of infant mortality in the US, but that we don’t report infant deaths the same as other countries.  If a child is born prematurely in the US, and then later tragically passes away, we count that as a death.  European countries do not.  If a child is still born, we say that is a death.  Other countries don’t.  Countries outside of the US use a different standard to say what a live child is.  Frankly, it is impossible to cull the numbers from other countries to match.  But it is clear that we define “infant mortality” much more honestly and accurately than many other countries. 

If you value millions of people having no access to care, then US is the country for you.

Hate to tell you this, but in the US, no one is denied care.  Just another case where your perception does not match reality. 

If you value that millions of people every year file for bankruptsy because of their medical bills, US is the country for you.

You could go to Japan and commit suicide as an alternative.  But let’s examine something here.  Please tell me what happens when someone files for bankruptcy.  I am really interested in what you know about it and how it matches reality.

If you value short life, then US is a country for you. 

What factors weigh into a “short life?” The first factor would be dying, right?  The problem you then have is tying the age of death into health care.  The US has almost 3 times the number of accidental deaths per capita than another other country.  We are a large company of risk takers and that is often to the detriment of life and limb.  So please explain to me how a guy climbing a mountain who falls and is killed upon impact reflects the quality of health care?

It doesn’t, but yet the WHO wanted to use that statistic as some sort of indictment against the US system. 

I’m sure that neither of us wish to trample the morals of individuals.

I am not sure of that at all.  You keep wanting to take more and more money from people to throw into systems that do not work.  Somehow I call the theft of the fruits of my labor to be a trampling of my rights.

Freedom is important, yet we have laws then in some areas limit peoples freedoms.

Maybe.  I generally see laws that prohibit people from having their freedoms invade or harm the freedoms of others.  Laws that restrict freedoms here in the US are generally attacked.  It may be different in your neck of the world.  You may like having a government entity or in the case of the EU, a quasi government entity control your life. 

We don’t.

We also have societal entitlements. In essence this might lead to more individual freedoms.

Please give an example of a societal entitlement that leads to greater freedom. 

To see this you will have to be honest enough to acknowledge the bigger picture.

The “bigger picture” defined by who?  Whose lens am I supposed to be looking through to see this “bigger picture?”

This may be a case where you and I simply disagree.  You seem to think that government is the force of change.  I believe that the individual is the force of change.  You believe that the people work for the government.  I believe the government works for the people. You believe the government has the right to control people’s lives.  I believe that the government only has that which the people cede to it.  All rights rest with individuals.

Nobody wants to throw money onto problems. Nobody likes waste.

The only solution you offered to the Japan health care crisis is “more money.” I am only reacting to your words.  Everything you have said is that if a system fails, it needs more money.  You never want to examine the system itself.

You asume that I am lying when I am clearly not.

I assume nothing.  I am just pointing out that you made statements that were both misleading and wrong. 

Making broad statements is not the same as lying. You know it, but you choose to be an asshole. Why?

Searching for and being truthful is never wrong.  It seems to offend some people but it doesn’t offend me at all.  Why does truth offend you?  Why does being accountable for the things that you say bother you?

Oh, and the “broad statements” idea?  Tell me this.  If I were to say “all women are sluts and whores,” would that offend you?  It is just a broad statement, right?  What makes you think that “broad statements” relieve you from any type of obligation to the truth?

I have not yet seen a republican equivalent of Obama- or Hillarycare.

Why would you?  Conservatives and Republicans are against socialized and or government run health care.  Why would someone propose something that they are fundamentally against?

3962 is just a reaction.

Of course, it is a reaction that covers more people at much less cost, but because it doesn’t force people to be under the thumb of the government, you seem to be against it. 

And now, when you watch the news, as I do, you rarely see actual suggestions.

Please reread what I said about media coverage.  Just because you watch the news doesn’t mean you are informed. 

You see plenty of nay-sayers, though.

The problem with this statement is that you seem to be so in love with the idea of socialized health care that you don’t care about the costs or the benefits.  You just love the idea.  It allows you to live in a pollyanna-ish world where “broad statements” pass for actual discussions, where distortions become truths, where inconvenient facts are ignored, where ignorance is celebrated and where making unfounded statements against people is celebrated.

Even now, you can’t admit that your statement that the Republicans hadn’t offered anything was wrong.  You just can’t seem to do it.

And yet you want to convince me that your morals on health care are somehow superior.

It doesn’t work that way.

You know what, DonnaK?

I think you could have said it much better…

No… no, I really couldn’t. As I’ve already said, I find it hard to remain emotionally detached about this topic. I can’t make the rational, reasonable, and perfectly sensible arguments that gitarcarver is making because about half way through my post I would no longer be able to control my anger.

Yes, I’m angry at you. I’m angry because, in a rare moment of weakness, I poured my emotions on this topic out to you and I don’t think you have yet to stop and consider a single word I said. You keep going on and on and on about your morality and what you think is right. It doesn’t seem to matter to you in the slightest that I - one of the people you are trying to morally help - wants nothing to do with your help or the system you are proposing. My honest and earnest plea with you to stop for a moment and consider that the very people you are claiming you want to help don’t want your help landed on deaf ears. I feel as though every word you write in here is disrespectful to me and people like me as you continue to insist that you know how to care for me better than I do. I can’t have a rational conversation with you because I am hurt, angry, and terribly upset about many of the things you’ve said and continue to say, despite my plea for understanding and respect.

So no… I can’t say it better. And it wouldn’t matter if I could because you seem utterly determined not to listen to even the most basic of arguments against you. You have dissembled, created straw men, been dishonest and disrespectful and refuse to even consider the possibility that the very thing you want will hurt the people you claim to want to help. No, I can’t say it better. I think it’s better if I continue to say nothing at all. It’s not like you’re listening to any of us anyway.

*sigh*