So there is fraud and waste in every system. You don’t think there is any fraud and waste in private insurance pools?

The difference is that while a private company wants to eliminate waste because it helps control costs and improve the product, the government has no such desire.  They can tax to raise the level of income.

The fact remains that medicare has lower overhead then the private insurance.

Sorry, but no.  On average Medicare has administrative costs of 26 cents per dollar while private firms have administration costs around 10 cents per benefit dollar.  As a percentage of costs, Medicare is lower, but here’s why.  In 2005 the average person was paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $12500 a year for private insurance.  Medicare costs for same person was over $19,000.  Assume for a moment that the admin costs of the private insurer was $100.  Assume that the cost of admin costs for Medicare was $125.  The percentage of costs is lower, but the actual cost is higher.

If there is fraud and waste, fix the loopholes.

Agreed.  I have said that all along.  The money saved could insure all the people that currently do not have insurance.  Yet the current proposals only ask for more money.  There is only talk of fixing the loopholes.  The money is already there.

I think its easy to point to out corruption and waste in these big government programs. Maybe in a lot of cases politicians don’t want to see a fix. Either they are corrupt and are benefiting from these sorts of programs, and or if they are conservative, they don’t want to fix a program so it would work.

Then why should anyone want to see their hard earned dollars be poured down a system that is full of waste and fraud?  Once again, there never seems to be an incentive for the government to clean up anything because all they have to do is tax people more to increase the income.  They don’t have to worry about fraud and waste because we - the people - cover that fraud.

As fellow human beings we have to take care of those who are worst off amongst us.

So I am responsible by force of law and the point of a gun to take care of people who are users of drugs, drunks, and who have made bad decisions on their own?  I am penalized for living a life where my decisions have not impacted on me in a negative way? 

Society and people have a responsibility to help people.  Morally I believe that to be true.  However, society and the government are not the same.

Just blindly fallowing an ideology that says all regulations are bad is crazy.

Of course, that is not what I said or even implied, but if you want to argue against it, feel free to do so.

they can’t be trust to the right thing. They have to be forced to.

Who decides what is “right?” Clearly you are for increasing the government’s role in the lives of Americans while I believe it is wrong to do so. 

As Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, “Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

I know he and the founding fathers were right. 

Being that their ideas seem to contradict yours, that means you are .......

Nice to see this place is back in top form.

*grabs popcorn*

pls continue.

*pulls up a chair*

Hey, can I have some of that popcorn? This is fun!

WAY TO GO GITARCARVER! :D

The difference is that while a private company wants to eliminate waste because it helps control costs and improve the product, the government has no such desire.  They can tax to raise the level of income.

Neither does the private insurance. They are just as effective as government monopoly only the private insurance monopoly has to pay profit, buy politicians, and spend money on advertisements. There is no insensitive for private insurance to eliminate waste becasue they are in a monopoly.

Sorry, but no.  On average Medicare has administrative costs of 26 cents per dollar while private firms have administration costs around 10 cents per benefit dollar.  As a percentage of costs, Medicare is lower, but here’s why.  In 2005 the average person was paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $12500 a year for private insurance.  Medicare costs for same person was over $19,000.  Assume for a moment that the admin costs of the private insurer was $100.  Assume that the cost of admin costs for Medicare was $125.  The percentage of costs is lower, but the actual cost is higher.

I’d like to see a source for your numbers, that is a source not owned by a private insurance company. Every study I’ve read says that statement above is fucking bullshit.

Agreed.  I have said that all along.  The money saved could insure all the people that currently do not have insurance.  Yet the current proposals only ask for more money.  There is only talk of fixing the loopholes.  The money is already there.

First of all I am not for the current proposals. Like i said Barack Obama = fail.

Dude if all the money could be saved fixing loopholes to cover everyone, I would not have a problem with that at all. Period. If you can fix health care by saving money I’d be all for that. So show me the money. None of the republican politicians are making your case… They say “let people buy insurance across state lines”. Which is just a ploy to make sure people buy these fly by night insurance plans that only exist in the least regulated states. Put that plan in action i guarantee that people will be buying plans from insurance companies based out of a storage unit in las vegas.

Then why should anyone want to see their hard earned dollars be poured down a system that is full of waste and fraud?  Once again, there never seems to be an incentive for the government to clean up anything because all they have to do is tax people more to increase the income.  They don’t have to worry about fraud and waste because we - the people - cover that fraud.

How about we the people stop being stupid pawns and fight to take back our representative government? If there was an actual consequence to the politicians actions, they would make damn sure the common people were represented. But the fact is we as private contributors… We can send in our checks for $25 maybe $100, even $1000 dollars to campaigns. The health care industry can send millions without batting an eye. You will not get elected if you don’t have tv commercials.

So I am responsible by force of law and the point of a gun to take care of people who are users of drugs, drunks, and who have made bad decisions on their own?  I am penalized for living a life where my decisions have not impacted on me in a negative way?

Society and people have a responsibility to help people. Yeah we fuck up as a people, but that is a whole argument on to its own. Look at the filth that is being peddled on tv channels. Some how I have the feeling that we are getting what we are paying for. You can look at my previous posts. What do we tell young girls? “be a whore and one day you’ll be a star!” and what do we tell young boys? “Just take what you want when you can get it, and that’s the only way you’ll get laid”. However, society and the government are not the same. Point being abhorrent behavior is encouraged at the corporate level. 

I agree with you on a theoretical level. But that’s not the case. You can argue from an ideological stand point, based in the land of make believe, or you can accept that we have to work with what we got.

Of course, that is not what I said or even implied, but if you want to argue against it, feel free to do so.

Well you can take down those straw men now.

Who decides what is “right?” Clearly you are for increasing the government’s role in the lives of Americans while I believe it is wrong to do so.

As Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, “Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

I know he and the founding fathers were right.

Being that their ideas seem to contradict yours, that means you are .......

Thomas Jefferson owned fucking slaves. You dig? Yeah i respect the mans wisdom on a number of points, but i’ll never listen to him talk about freedom. Because he him self never believed in it. If you want to wax about TJ i’ll have you know he wrote a book about the teaching and morality of jesus christ. He basically took all the red lettering out of the new testament and made it book. But he subtracted all the claims of divinity by JC.

So that weird event where he turned the water into wine, and turned 2 fish into enough food to feed thousands, how much did he charge per head to get in the door?

*pulls up a chair* Hey, can I have some of that popcorn? This is fun! WAY TO GO GITARCARVER! :D

I’m your plaything, only i can make you jump whenever i want. Its nice to see you are just as wise as Rann (which is not saying a lot). But you can’t help but draw the similarities. gitarcarver, although i don’t agree with a thing he or she has said, the point is they actually makes points. What have you and your buddy included in this discussion? Zip. Crocodile tears and straw men arguments. I think you should have GITARCARVER be a contributor to your site. He obviously has more to say then you do, whether or not he is right. Oh btw where is all the liberals that read your site? You said there was a ton of them. moorewatch.com is an equal representation of political diversity. All i’ve heard from is right wingers. No offense gitarcarver. Im pretty sure you have the intellect to not get offended by me labeling you as a right winger. And even if you said i was a commie pinko swine, i’d still have respect for you, because you actually can speak to the issues.

Neither does the private insurance.

You are kidding right?  You don’t think that insurance companies want to have the least waste?  Less waste increases the bottom line.  Less waste means the ability to compete better.  Your point is simply ridiculous.

There is no insensitive for private insurance to eliminate waste becasue they are in a monopoly.

My bad.  I didn’t realize that hundreds of companies competing against each other constituted a “monopoly.” By your logic and reasoning, car companies are a monopoly.  Ford, GM, Audi, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, VW… all one monopoly.  Fast food chains must be a monopoly too.  (That is why they advertise so much - to compete against themselves.) To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep a-using dat word. I dunna tink it mean wat you tink it means.” (Gratuitous “Princess Bride” reference.)

I’d like to see a source for your numbers,

The CBO, Heritage Foundation and CATO Group all say the same.  Of course you wanting to see the source is an old tactic that never really works.  It is guilt by association.  It is a way of dismissing the data and the conclusions without any type of critical look at them.

None of the republican politicians are making your case…

Actually they all are.  It seems that you have been either unable to hear or unwilling to listen to anything other than your preconceived notions.

They say “let people buy insurance across state lines”. Which is just a ploy to make sure people buy these fly by night insurance plans that only exist in the least regulated states.

Okay, assume for a moment that you are correct.  Lets say that the result is that people buy from companies across state lines.  Several things will happen.  First, states will be forced to examine their regulations to make sure they actually protect the consumer, rather than fill the coffers of the regulatory boards.  In my book, that is a good thing.  Secondly, it will cause costs to go down due to competition.  Third, it will cause costs to go down because as of right now, insurance companies are required to set up subsidiaries in each state to sell insurance in that state.  You have already said that you are for eliminating waste in the system, and yet when waste such as duplication of work is shown, you are against eliminating that waste.  Fourth, buying insurance across state lines means the pool of insured people grows.  That means that actual costs can be spread out.  The result is once again, lower premiums.

The health care industry can send millions without batting an eye. You will not get elected if you don’t have tv commercials.

Actually, they can’t but I don’t want to let facts get it the way of your delusions.  I agree that we should hold representatives accountable for their actions.  I believe we saw that with the mid-term elections in 2006 and the general elections in 2008.  Conservatives backed away in droves from candidates that no longer voted the way they said they would.  We may see the same thing this Tuesday from the liberal side, but I am not holding my breath. 

Society and people have a responsibility to help people.

I agree and have said as much.  It is a moral decision of each person.  It is not the decision made by the government.

You can look at my previous posts.....

I can look at your previous posts and the one to which I am responding now.  In them I see a person who cannot make a cognitive argument without insulting people.  I see a person who has to use coarse language in a public forum.  You want “society” and “people” to clean up their act and clean up the messages “they” send out to people?  I suggest you look in the mirror and start seeing the message you are putting forth.  Clean your message up first, and then you can crusade against the actions of others.

Yeah i respect the mans wisdom on a number of points, but i’ll never listen to him talk about freedom. Because he him self never believed in it.

It is a childish and ill-conceived thought that condemns people of a previous age using standards of today.  You judge them by the standards of their day.  Yes, Jefferson owned slaves.  Historical records at Montecello show that Jefferson was an above average owner, never split apart families, and also fired overseers that beat slaves.  On some level, that is mitigating the fact that he still owned slaves which we today believe is morally wrong.  (Not that it matters, but Jefferson freed his slaves at the time of his death and many stayed on the estate to help run it.) It is better to say “look how far we have come” rather than “look how ignorant they were” because when we are all worm food, people will look back at us with the same critical eye.  Unlike you, I won’t dismiss Jeffereson’s writings because of his actions at the time.  Just as I won’t dismiss John Kennedy’s dreams (long abandoned by the liberal left) because he had an affair.  I won’t dismiss John’ Newtons’ “Amazing Grace” because he was the captain of a slave ship.  I won’t dismiss the writings and speeches of the Reverend Martin Luther King because he too had failings of the flesh and other issues.

I prefer to judge (actually “discern” not judge) a man on the impact he has had on the world, the country, the people around him and most of all me. 

That being said, ignore Jefferson at your own peril.  The man’s Declaration was and still is one brilliant piece of writing.  There are many historians that believe that of the 50 most influential documents ever written, Jefferson penned two of them. 

If you can find fault with Jefferson’s 1801 Inaugural speech other than the man himself, go for it.  Have fun.  But to try and dismiss it out of hand based upon a standard that you yourself do not meet now, and will not meet in the future, is silly.

I think you should have GITARCARVER be a contributor to your site.

This is a horrible idea.

I am pretty close to the guy and I can tell you he has no interest in writing for any site anywhere anytime. 

Sheez.

This is a horrible idea. I am pretty close to the guy and I can tell you he has no interest in writing for any site anywhere anytime. Sheez.

Really? ‘Cause I would LOVE to talk to you about writing here. You, sir (or madam), are currently one of my favorite people. Except something in your writing tells me I might already know you… do I? Hit me up with an email when you get the chance. ;)

I’m your plaything, only i can make you jump whenever i want.

Yeah. Because I’m jumping SO FAR for you. *snort* Honestly, I don’t know how you can have you ass handed to you this badly by someone in a debate and still have the audacity to show your face here again. Either you are amazingly ignorant or you like the punishment. In either case you may continue to amuse me as much as you’d wish. *grabs a new bowl of popcorn*

Hee. It’s still trying to get me to fight with it. It’s so silly.

Isn’t it, though? I think we found our new family pet, Rann. What’d you reckon we should call the lil’ runt? ;p

I just still want to know how much mstewart207 has gained through the capitalism that he/she was decrying.  Owning a home outright?  Being a software engineer?  I wonder how common that is across the globe.

This is like a UFC match between Bruce Lee and Miss Havisham from “Great Expectations.” It would be fun at first, but after the first few punches you’d just feel sorry for her.

mstewart-

Since society and government have a responsiblility to help people, wouldn’t the most effective way to begin be to allow people to help themselves? If you take away the fruits of a person’s labor by force, how is that helping? Furthermore, if you just give those resources away to someone who hasn’t earned them, aren’t you just fostering a sense of entitlement in that person? How exactly has the entitlement/victim mentality created by the New Deal and the Great Society helped people?

I’ll give you an example. I don’t make much money, but I managed to save over $2000 dollars last year. Unfortunately, every penny of that savings will be used to pay property taxes and vehicle registration taxes. Add in state income taxes, sales tax, phone tax, and gasoline tax, and you have a sizeable portion of my meager income that is forcibly taken from me. Maybe you could explain how the government can take all this money from me and people like me, and still be carrying the largest debt in history. While you’re at it, kindly explain how all this debt helps me. And maybe you could explain why its wrong for Thomas Jefferson to force resources from people in the form of slavery, but it’s just fine when the government forces resources from me in the form of heavy taxation.

Mstewart - just so you know, I am a liberal here (as is up4debate) and have been around since about 2003. The reason we have all gone quiet is becasue you are so fucking rude that we’d rather just leave the thread be.

So there is fraud and waste in every system. You don’t think there is any fraud and waste in private insurance pools? The fact remains that medicare has lower overhead then the private insurance. How much of the premiums that you pay for private insurance actually goes towards medicine? How much goes to advertisements, buying politicians and profit? If there is fraud and waste, fix the loopholes.

I would be willing to bet there is WAY less ‘waste’ in private insurance.  Insurance companies are not in the business of health care.  Their business plan is to actually NOT spend money.

So I am responsible by force of law and the point of a gun to take care of people who are users of drugs, drunks, and who have made bad decisions on their own?  I am penalized for living a life where my decisions have not impacted on me in a negative way? 

Society and people have a responsibility to help people.  Morally I believe that to be true.  However, society and the government are not the same.

I got into this with a friend of mine who lived here in Canada until she was about 19yo, then moved to Alabama to get married.  She has been there for about 15 yrs now, and I guess forgets everything about what Cdn health care is like.  We got into over something she posted on FB about Obama being the next Hitler. 

Anyways, she is totally against any universal health care, for exactly this reason.  Her husband works hard, and they dont want their tax dollars going to pay for some ‘lazy homeless bum’ who chooses not to help himself.

I cant speak for how things would be in the US if you got universal health care, I can only comment on my own experiences here.  And here, that argument is soooo invalid.  Not once in my life, have I ever gone to an emerg room at a hospital, and seen a homeless person.  Its not like they are lining up because they dont have to pay for it. Most homeless people, drug addicts etc..., are that way, BECAUSE they dont go seek help.  Cost has nothing to do with it.  A friend of mine is a cop, and before that was a social worker of sorts, who ran a few shelters of different types.  In the winter, we would have weather alerts for frost, that it would be dangerous to be outside.  The homeless have free shelters they can go to, but still, volunteers go out during these cold nights, and try to talk them into coming into a shelter.  There is norally more wrong with them than just simple laziness that has lead them to where they are. 

To think that the money in taxes that you DONT use in a universal system is primarily going to the lazy, is by far the biggest misconception. 

Again, in your culture, the homeless could be lining up down the block on a daily basis for all I know.  But its not that way here.

Ill give you some examples of those you would definitly be helping out, examples of people I know personally.

The children of parents where the primary bread winner has just lost their job.  The kids still got their H1N1 shots no problem (and really, think about that as far as kids that your kids may be going to school with). 

A friend of mine who has a rare medical condition, and needs constant treatment, which started right as he was finishing college.  Extreme medical expenses were not an issue for him up here obviously.  Because of his condition, he had to kind of set his own hours, so he started his own business.  He has now employed 15-20 people consistently for the last 10 years.  Not having to worry about medical expenses helped make this possible for him.

A single relative who runs her own (very) small business, and has had 3 organ transplants, and requires daily dialosys(sp?).  There is no way she would have been able to handle all of the expense of that (would her insurance rates have gone up down there at any point?), but she doesnt have to, and can still maintain her small retail store, and support herself.

My own immediate family… three brain surgeries in a 12 month period.  Nothing out of pocket, no premiums going up etc…

This is where you really see the results of our system.  YES there are flaws, you have stupid humans running it, so there are going to be problems. 

Wow, that was longer that I planned!

What’d you reckon we should call the lil’ runt? ;p

Hmmm… is “Tardykins” too trite? I dunno, that’s almost like naming a dalmation “Spot” or a persian “Fluffy"…

Her husband works hard, and they dont want their tax dollars going to pay for some ‘lazy homeless bum’ who chooses not to help himself.

There is a question concerning whether requiring health care for all is allowed under the US Constitution.  I certainly do not believe it is because neither of the two clauses mentioned by proponents - the “general welfare” clause and the “commerce clause” actually cover requiring citizens to purchase anything. 

Let’s move to the idea that the President and others have floated that requiring health insurance is like requiring car insurance. 

(I won’t even address the idea that 19% of all people in the US don’t have car insurance and on that level alone, the comparison fails.)

So let’s take hypothetical case of “Joe” (who used to be a plumber but now is a reporter) (JUST KIDDING!!) who likes to drink “adult beverages.  In fact, Joe likes to drink adult beverages a lot.

Joe gets stopped, arrested and convicted for driving under the influence.  Joe’s insurance rates climb dramatically because of behaviour for which he and he alone is responsible. 

A few days following his second conviction of driving under the influence, Joe gets the bad news that he needs a new liver.  Years of drinking have pickled his liver to the point where it cannot function.

Now Joe’s operation will be paid with tax dollars that throw Joe’s behaviour in with mine and claims we are the same. 

At no point is Joe held accountable for his decisions.  If anything, I am held accountable because I am paying for his decisions. 

There is something unfair about that.  While I realize that not every operation or disease is “preventable” like Joe’s, many are. 

I should never be accountable for another person’s decisions unless they impact me.  And this is where the rub truly begins to come into play.

Assuming the government will want to keep health care costs low, the corollary is that they will want to lesson behaviour that impacts on health care.

We are already seeing “behaviour modification by laws” here in the states.  No bake sales allowed in New York because cakes, cupcakes and brownies are “evil.” The government is talking about taxing soft drinks because they are “bad” as well.  No fois grois in Chicago because… oh wait.  That ban was repealed because of pressure from restaurant and hotel lobbyists.  (All of which proves that the bans and taxes don’t have anything to do with health, but rather power and monetary control.)

I am thrilled that you like the Canadian health care system.  While that sounds sarcastic, I truly mean it.  As a Canadian, you should have pride in the systems you and your government put into place.

As for me?  I am not sure that would be thrilled with an average 4 month wait for surgeries in Canada.  I am not sure that I would be thrilled with rationed care.  Yet I am perfectly willing to say that if you are happy with it, that is what matters.  YOU are the consumer of the Canadian health care system - pas moi.

Once again, my largest argument is taking from those who act responsible and basically “rewarding” those who do not.  My secondary argument is the idea the government is about to enter into the private sector where they control the costs of their private sector competitors and then say “we are going going to force you out of business.”

There is something “un-American” about that.

Lastly, you make a good point on the homeless.  I have worked a couple weekends with my church groups with the “bridge people.  Two things I learned.  First was that working with them was not my calling.  Secondly, you are correct in that they do not want to accept shelter, care, etc.  They don’t even want to sign up for it.

Which leads to this problem.  One of the provisions of HR 3200 was that people who did not have “approved” health insurance ("approved" meaning “what lobbyist group can get Congress to put THEIR specialties in the bill) would be fined and thrown in jail.

Think about that for a moment.  That means that we would either have to throw a lot of the homeless people in overcrowded jails, or ignore the law and only fine and incarcerate those which can “afford” it. 

That’s just flat out wrong.

We are fast becoming a nation that rewards risky and questionable behaviour and penalizing those who live quite, law abiding lives of good, responsible choices.

Because of that, this type of take over of people’s freedoms must be stopped.

There is a question concerning whether requiring health care for all is allowed under the US Constitution.  I certainly do not believe it is because neither of the two clauses mentioned by proponents - the “general welfare” clause and the “commerce clause” actually cover requiring citizens to purchase anything.

I know you Americans really guard and adhere to your US Consitution, which I really think is great.  One thing I will say about Americans (though I typically dont like to generalize), is you are very loyal to the things you believe in.  But as with other cases, do you think this was thought of when it was written?  Is there not room for updates, based on new ideas/technologies (just in general).

A few days following his second conviction of driving under the influence, Joe gets the bad news that he needs a new liver.  Years of drinking have pickled his liver to the point where it cannot function.

Just out of curiousity, what happens to Joe if he doesnt have insurance, or better yet, his insurance refuses to cover him because of some clause about inflicting this upon himself?

I do see what you are saying though, and it is a point worth considering.  But if your biggest issue is, you will have to pay $X per year in tax to cover universal health care, and if Y is the % of X that you do not ‘use’, how is that being spent, or more importantly, on whom.... well, I just think it may be presumptuous to assume that a large part of Y is going to those who are lazy, or those who consistently make bad decisions.  Some will for sure.  But I really think that those honest people that it really helps, far outweighs the group you are talking about. 

Think about the two people I mentioned in my example.  Because they didnt have to worry about medical costs, both are able to run their own businesses, and also employ people.  Do you guys have welfare down there?  Because I think without universal health care, both of them would certainly be on some sort of assistance otherwise, and definitly not be employing anyone.

Once again, my largest argument is taking from those who act responsible and basically “rewarding” those who do not.

Fair enough.  But lets say, that of all those people who receive way more than they put into it (therefore taking from you), lets say we could put them into one big group.  We have identified them.  Now, we break that group up into two subgroups. 

Group A is the people you are speaking of, those who make super bad life altering choices, along with those who are just lazy, along with anyone else who is just sucking off the system only because they can. 

Group B is the people I was talking about.  People who are honest hard working, proud people, who run into unfortunate circumstances.  Big or small, the system is always there for them.  They want to lead a productive life, and earn their own way, and this system makes that possible for them.

Ok, so we have our two groups.  So, in order to satisfy your largest argument, what would the ratio have to be?  If it was 50/50?  If it was 25% from A, 75% from B?  Or is it simply a principle thing, where even 1% from group A makes the plan against your values?  I dont really have a ‘comeback’ in mind here, and I am honestly not trying to set you up for anything, Im honestly just wondering what youre answer to this would be.

Which leads to this problem.  One of the provisions of HR 3200 was that people who did not have “approved” health insurance ("approved" meaning “what lobbyist group can get Congress to put THEIR specialties in the bill) would be fined and thrown in jail.

This is obviously a stupid provision.  It doesnt make an entire idea bad.  But you know that.

We are fast becoming a nation that rewards risky and questionable behaviour and penalizing those who live quite, law abiding lives of good, responsible choices.

You are talking about hedge funds, and hedge fund managers, arent you?  :D jk.

As for me?  I am not sure that would be thrilled with an average 4 month wait for surgeries in Canada.

I have experience here.  And although I read these kinds of statements online all the time in forums like these, I will tell you, this is VERY VERY misleading.

Hmmm… is “Tardykins” too trite? I dunno, that’s almost like naming a dalmation “Spot” or a persian “Fluffy"…

Naw… that’s not too trite at all. In fact, it’s perfect! Tardykins it is! :D

Is there not room for updates, based on new ideas/technologies (just in general).

There very well may be.  That is why we have a process for amendments to the Constitution.  Saying “we are passing a law because we are in power” is not that process.

Just out of curiousity, what happens to Joe if he doesnt have insurance, or better yet, his insurance refuses to cover him because of some clause about inflicting this upon himself?

Ummm.... how about we hold Joe accountable?

They want to lead a productive life, and earn their own way, and this system makes that possible for them.

So does the current system here.  It allows people to purchase the insurance they will need or believe they will need.  There is a failure in your premise that only a universal health care system will enable a person to work with faced with health costs.

This is obviously a stupid provision.  It doesnt make an entire idea bad.  But you know that.

No, I don’t know that.  It is a part of the mindset of this bill.  It is part of the “we are the government and we know what is best for you” mentality.  It is a bill that was released under the fanfare of “we won’t raise taxes” and the bill contains more taxes.  It is a bill that says we won’t force people into the government plan, and then does just that.  It is a bill that allows lawyers to sue more doctors, health care providers and insurance companies, while saying “we are the government, you can’t sue us.” Lastly it is a bill that was released under the fanfare of “it only is 890 billion” when in fact it it 1.25 trillion.

The “we are here to help you by telling you what to do” is terrifying and just about as Un-American as one can get. 

I have experience here.  And although I read these kinds of statements online all the time in forums like these, I will tell you, this is VERY VERY misleading.

I believe that is what you wish us to believe.  There are too many studies and surveys to say that you are totally right in this case.  I know that in 2005 the Canadian government realized that the wait times were too long and and started to pile massive amounts of cash to try and fix the situation.  The result?  Not so hot.  In 2007, the government set goals to obtain in 2010 and it doesn’t look like those times will be met.

In other words:

Indeed, Canada’s provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery—described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.”

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O’Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Source:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html

I can continue to cite other articles, studies and resources.  On the opposite side of the coin that the wait times are fine, I always see anecdotal stories that it is not so bad.  I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle - the system is not as bad as we portray it and not as good as your perceive it.

Just out of curiousity, what happens to Joe if he doesnt have insurance, or better yet, his insurance refuses to cover him because of some clause about inflicting this upon himself?

To address this point quickly:

Imagine you have a contractor build a house for you, and he offers insurance in case something goes wrong within the first 5 years.  This contractor specifically tells you that if you overload any wall outlet his company will *not* be liable for any electrical shortage or failing and it is specifically spelled out in the contract.  You, as the home owner, decide that you should be able to do anything with the home that you want, (which you can), and so you plug several power strips worth of computers, monitors, space heaters, and other high amperage devices into one outlet.  As a result, the wall outlet catches fire and sets the carpet on fire.  Luckily, it is put out before more damage is done.
Now, should the contractor be liable?  Or, being specifically told that what you did was a breach of contract, *that you signed*, should you be responsible?  Keep in mind the contractor did not say you *couldn’t* do what you wanted, only that you would suffer the consequences yourself for doing so.

Up4-Always good to see your posts. It’s nice to have someone with a brain to debate with.

Here’s my problem with “Universal” Health Care. I live in rural Maine. There are very few doctors and dentists up here. My wife had to travel five hours one way just to have her teeth worked on, and that was when she was covered by dental insurance.

Just because I have health insurance doesn’t mean I’m going to have access to a doctor. It just means I’m going to be paying so other people have access to a doctor.

I’m curious (really, not accusing) about how Canada handles rural areas in regards to medical care. Do rural people have a difficult time seeing a doctor there as well?

There very well may be.  That is why we have a process for amendments to the Constitution.  Saying “we are passing a law because we are in power” is not that process.

“Because we are in power” is obviously not a good reason.  “Because its not currently clearly defined in the Constitution” is not a good reason not to.

Ummm.... how about we hold Joe accountable?

Sure, no problem.  Death for Joe then?

So does the current system here.  It allows people to purchase the insurance they will need or believe they will need.  There is a failure in your premise that only a universal health care system will enable a person to work with faced with health costs.

No, Im saying special circumstances.  But I dont know your system well enough I guess.  How do college students pay for health care?  A single mom with a disease that requires daily treatment, who cant work for someone else, gets by running a small retail store (used book store), is now on her 3rd organ transplant.  She can just go get insurance, no problem?  So if your premise holds, not a single person has a problem getting the insurance coverage they need? 

Im not saying a univeral system is the only system.  Im saying, if you start with nothing, health care costs will not prevent you from getting ahead in a universal system. 

No, I don’t know that.

You dont know that is a stupid provision, and not enough to reject an entire idea?  You may have other issues (obv you do), but you know that provision isnt something to base it on.  Never heard the phrase ‘you dont throw out the baby with the bath water’?  Maybe you do!

Indeed, Canada’s provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery—described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.”

160 does not seem high to me.  It is very good that they had that option though. 

The system, from what I have read, and what I have experienced, works like this…

Its first come first serve based on need.  So what does this mean?  Someone dying, or in need of life saving surgery, is going to be looked at asap.  Someone who is not, will have to wait.  This has pros and cons…

Pros are obv, if you really need it, you get it immediately, regardless of your ability to pay.

The Con is (which I totally agree needs more work done on) is for things like joint surgery etc… no one is going to die, so they dont get prioritized as high.  So they get prioritized by the amount of discomfort, pain etc.  Some require surgery, but have no pain, maybe just limited movement.  They are going to have a long wait.  When you avg it all out, it sounds terrible.  I still dont like that anyone has to wait with any amount of pain.  But I would rather find a solution to that, than give up all of the pros I have talked about in this post and others. 

Also, I think this is very telling…

I am thrilled that you like the Canadian health care system.  While that sounds sarcastic, I truly mean it.  As a Canadian, you should have pride in the systems you and your government put into place.

I couldnt disagree with this idea more.  I like the system because of the benefits, and because after weighing the pros vs the cons, I agree with it.  I would never be so blind as to support or be loyal to, or defend something, just because it is the system ‘of my country’.  I would not defend a system I do not believe in, and Im not brainwashed into blindly thinking ‘my system is better than your system nah nah nah nah’.  If that is part of your reasoning for defending your system, you should open yourself up a little.

Guess you wont be answering my Group A vs Group B question.  If anyone else would like to, I would love to hear some responses. I am just curious.

Imagine you have a contractor build a house for you, and he offers insurance in case something goes wrong within the first 5 years.  This contractor specifically tells you that if you overload any wall outlet his company will *not* be liable for any electrical shortage or failing and it is specifically spelled out in the contract.  You, as the home owner, decide that you should be able to do anything with the home that you want, (which you can), and so you plug several power strips worth of computers, monitors, space heaters, and other high amperage devices into one outlet.  As a result, the wall outlet catches fire and sets the carpet on fire.  Luckily, it is put out before more damage is done.
Now, should the contractor be liable?  Or, being specifically told that what you did was a breach of contract, *that you signed*, should you be responsible?  Keep in mind the contractor did not say you *couldn’t* do what you wanted, only that you would suffer the consequences yourself for doing so.

The contractor should not be liable. 

A human life is worth more than a house, which makes it hard to compare. 

It was just an honest question.  If Joe has done damage to himself, his insurance wont cover him, and he needs life saving surgery/treatment… in your system, will he get it, or does he go without?  Im honestly not sure.  Like, if he were to walk into a hospital, could they refuse him?  Thats all I was asking.

Again though, these arguments ALWAYS come back to people who are irresponsible.  That is not the entire group of people who benefit.

I’m curious (really, not accusing) about how Canada handles rural areas in regards to medical care. Do rural people have a difficult time seeing a doctor there as well?

You know, thats a very good point.  I think throughout most of Canada, basically just because of the weather, we are fairly concentrated along the border.  Im not sure about Regina through BC, there may be some more northern points that are more rural. 

Your country is freakin HUGE and very spread out in place (I have driven all across and through it many times).  A friend moved out to 100acre farm a few years ago, to a place we consider ‘out in the middle of nowhere’.  Its less than 2 hours away.  And I know there are cities closer with major hospitals. 

I really cant answer your question, sorry, but I will look into it.  Its funny, just off the top of my head, Im trying to think of any point that Ive been to in Canada, where I would be 5 hours from a fair size city, and for the life of me, I cant.

I would say though, that in your case, you should get some kind of tax break in a universal system.  Gas, milage covered for going to a hospital, at a more than fair rate.

A human life is worth more than a house, which makes it hard to compare. 

But the comparison isn’t really to the value of the thing, but rather to the decision you made, I think. The point of the thing isn’t the damage, but rather that you went into it with eyes wide open.

The issue we’re having is that people basically, after the fact, say “Well when he told me that I wasn’t really paying attention, and I signed it without really reading it, so it should do what I thought it should do instead of what it says it does.” That’s what people are complaining about a lot of times with insurance exclusions. Had they read the contract before they signed and committed to it, they would have known what was and wasn’t covered, and at that point they could either get a different policy that did cover what they wanted, or just not buy one.

Putting everyone on the public option… and that’s what would eventually happen… is basically saying “Well, since some people aren’t smart or responsible enough to take care of this themselves, we’re just going to take everyone’s options away.”

The question then becomes about people that supposedly can’t afford it on their own no matter how responsible they want to be. Well, phrasing it as a moral imperative is pretty silly. You know, because while you can make a lot of arguments about the value of human life and our responsibility to our fellow man, deciding that our responsibility to our fellow man extends, by law, to making sure our fellow man has healthcare is sort of arbitrarily defining that particular responsibility, isn’t it?

That’s the problem with making it an emotional, almost spiritual, argument. Okay, so as a human being (within a certain bracket) I am required to make sure my fellow man has health insurance, and the government is going to make sure I do my duty by legally making me pay to have it happen. Well why does my duty extend only to American fellow men? Why doesn’t it extend to throwing myself in front of a bullet for someone? Why doesn’t it extend to putting on a uniform and going down and stopping the slaughter in various South American/African/Middle Eastern nations? Why, specifically, is health care such a moral imperative that THAT’S the one that I have to pay this money for?

There are a lot of things that we could be doing because human life is invaluable that we don’t. You don’t, either, or you wouldn’t have time to be on the computer, much less posting here, because you’d spend your life trying to get all of them done.

“Because we are in power” is obviously not a good reason.  “Because its not currently clearly defined in the Constitution” is not a good reason not to.

We are a nation of laws.  The founding law is the Constitution.  It is what the country is based upon.  How to change the Constitution is well known and eliminates any party politics.

Sure, no problem.  Death for Joe then? 

That would be Joe’s choice, wouldn’t it? 

Never heard the phrase ‘you dont throw out the baby with the bath water’?  Maybe you do!

Have you heard of that saying?  To insure 8-10 million people, we are looking at destroying the entire health care system here.  That truly is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  The fact of the matter is that the waste in the current Medicare and Medicaid system could more than pay for insuring the 8-10 million people privately.  Instead, we are looking at driving 300 million people into a government plan with more costs, higher premiums and less service. 

That is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

How do college students pay for health care?

With money.  While I understand your point, it based on a false premise.  Most 18-24 year olds do not have insurance because they choose not to.  It is not because of finances or lack of fiances.  It is a choice that the individual makes.

A single mom with a disease that requires daily treatment, who cant work for someone else, gets by running a small retail store (used book store), is now on her 3rd organ transplant.  She can just go get insurance, no problem? 

They may not.  But if they have paid into an insurance system in most cases they won’t have a worry in the world. 

So if your premise holds, not a single person has a problem getting the insurance coverage they need?

Problems?  No.  There are always problems in any system.  For example, while people revile the private insurance companies, Medicare and Medicare turn down more claims than private companies.

I couldnt disagree with this idea more.  I like the system because of the benefits, and because after weighing the pros vs the cons, I agree with it.

Good.  I am glad that you are happy.  We have a different starting premise though.  Canadians believe that health care is a right.  They then abrogate protection of that right to the government.  Americans believe that freedom and the freedom to choose is a right.  We don’t give up that right easily. 

Guess you wont be answering my Group A vs Group B question.  If anyone else would like to, I would love to hear some responses. I am just curious.

There is no answer that will fit into a neat little box.  There is no ratio.  The problem is that you appear to be basing your idea that without government run health care, people will fall through the cracks.  I spent a couple years as a volunteer in a hospital cancer ward as a grief counselor.  When funds weren’t there, or some other issues came up, the hospital stepped up as a private company, and more often than not, private charities stepped up to help with the bills as well.

That point is somewhat important as the Obama administration is now taking aim at charitable contributions.  This gets back to the basic premise of this administration in particular and the left in general:  They believe they know what to do with your money better than you do.

So instead of people helping people, what we are turning into is a nation of people who are never weaned from the government teat.  JFK said “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” His words followed that of the founders and great Americans.

We’ve grown away from that and it is a shame.

I find it interesting how often the liberals here in government scream and holler about not legislating morality and then they claim the moral high ground that universal healthcare is a moral imperative because “helping people is the right thing to do.”
(just to be clear, not accusing you of that, up4, that is aimed at our politicians.)
As Rann pointed out, where do we draw the line?  Should the government be able to forcibly put alcoholics and drug users in rehab?  What about people who over-eat?  What if the government believes that homeschooling is wrong?  They are actually trying to eliminate homeschooling from many states for that very reason. 
There are huge dangers in allowing the government to “protect us from ourselves.” This is why the founding fathers constructed the Constitution in the way they did.  It is crafted in such a way that the government has minimal oversight over how an individual treats *himself* but good oversight in how they *mistreat* others.
Personally, I *do not want* the government taking care of me.  I don’t want *anyone* taking care of me unless I specifically ask them to.  Otherwise, you give them a certain amount of power that will snowball.  In a not so amusing way, it’s analogous to accepting money from the mob (or anyone involved in Chicago politics.) Once you become indebted to an organization like that, it only gets worse until you start asking yourself “how did I get in this deep?” I would rather not see that happen to my country.

We are a nation of laws.  The founding law is the Constitution.  It is what the country is based upon.  How to change the Constitution is well known and eliminates any party politics.

Ummm, I dont really see how that addresses what I was saying, but ok.

That would be Joe’s choice, wouldn’t it?

You think Joe chooses to die?  Ok. 

That is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ok, we can leave this alone.  Youre just going off on tangents, and not addressing what I was saying.

Most 18-24 year olds do not have insurance because they choose not to.  It is not because of finances or lack of fiances.  It is a choice that the individual makes.

Most 18-24yos when I was that age were fairly broke!  The college experience may be different down there.  Ballpark, what would insurance cost for someone like this, say with asthma and chronic bronchitis? 

They may not.  But if they have paid into an insurance system in most cases they won’t have a worry in the world.

Really?  If you pay into auto insurance, you dont have to worry about your medical bills?  How does that work, Ive never heard of that.  Interesting.

Americans believe that freedom and the freedom to choose is a right.  We don’t give up that right easily. 

I can appreciate that, really.  And you are right, its different mindsets.  For example, I accept that I dont have a choice when it comes to my tax dollars being used for local police services.  I cant choose private policing services, and Im ok with that.  You might call that big govt, but I just look at things on a case by case basis.

There is no answer that will fit into a neat little box.

Im surprised, since this is simply addressing your number one concern.  Or maybe I misunderstand completely?  Is it just that you dont want your tax dollars going to help either group?

Personally, I *do not want* the government taking care of me.  I don’t want *anyone* taking care of me unless I specifically ask them to.  Otherwise, you give them a certain amount of power that will snowball.  In a not so amusing way, it’s analogous to accepting money from the mob (or anyone involved in Chicago politics.) Once you become indebted to an organization like that, it only gets worse until you start asking yourself “how did I get in this deep?” I would rather not see that happen to my country.

I do understand this way of thinking.  I mean, I dont think you mean that 100%, but its probably true in the area of health care.

This got blown up, but my main point of posting was to address what seems to be the number one argument I always hear ‘i dont want my tax dollars going to help someone who is lazy yadda yadda etc...’.  Its not a valid primary reason.  Your reason is.  I dont agree with it personally!  But its a valid reason.

That’s what people are complaining about a lot of times with insurance exclusions. Had they read the contract before they signed and committed to it, they would have known what was and wasn’t covered, and at that point they could either get a different policy that did cover what they wanted, or just not buy one.

Very true.  But I think insurance companies should deny every claim possible.  I would not blame them for denying 100% of claims.  Of course they would not do that, they would find a balance between as many denials as possible, while still retaining and aquiring new customers.  And I see no reason for them to make policies clear and easy to understand.

I think I can field a couple of these questions, if you boys will allow me onto the field for a moment or two…

The college experience may be different down there.  Ballpark, what would insurance cost for someone like this, say with asthma and chronic bronchitis?

Two points. First, nearly all colleges provide students with health coverage of some kind. Granted, that coverage usually sucks and it’s limited in scope, but they’re covered. Every college plan I’ve ever heard of covers all pre-existing conditions as well, so that isn’t a problem. Secondly, some one of any age with asthma and chronic bronchitis probably won’t get covered by most insurance companies. If they did get coverage it wouldn’t be great and it would almost certainly exclude any treatment of pre-existing conditions for a year, and it would probably cost $500 or more a month (high risk pools and all that).

Having said all of that, you’d think that I, being someone who has serious, chronic health problems that cannot be taken lightly, would welcome the thought of universal health care. I don’t. In fact, I detest the idea for largely the same reasons Jim (not *my* Jim, the other commenter) listed above. No one makes decisions about my body but me. The LAST thing I would ever want is the government getting involved with my body and my health. Would a universal system cost less than my current insurance? Most certainly. Financially, it would make sense for me to buy into universal health care. But medically? NEVER.

I want to address one other point here if I may…

Think about the two people I mentioned in my example.  Because they didnt have to worry about medical costs, both are able to run their own businesses, and also employ people.  Do you guys have welfare down there?  Because I think without universal health care, both of them would certainly be on some sort of assistance otherwise, and definitly not be employing anyone.

Here’s where America’s system gets it right. Now, it should be obvious to all that there’s simply no way in hell any insurance company would cover me, but yet I have excellent health insurance. In fact, I have SPECTACULAR health insurance. How’d we do it?

Simple. Connecticut has a law that states that any small business of two people or more must be offered the same levels and prices of coverage as a large business. CT insurance companies aren’t allowed to skimp on covering the little guy. Well, Jim has had his own business since 1997, and I became his legal partner in 2001, so there was our business of two. We signed up as two individuals instead of as spouses and BAM! Insurance. And not just insurance but premium insurance with words like “unlimited” in the title.

Great system, huh? Both of the people in your example would be eligible for coverage in CT and in any other state that has similar laws. Now imagine this… we follow the Republican’s plan to open up insurance across state lines. Now anyone anywhere in the country can start a small business of any kind with a partner and be able to buy any level or type of insurance they want to. With interstate competition more and more states and insurance companies would begin to cover more and more people. And any enterprising person could, with the help of one other person, start a small business and get coverage. Hell, you could knit necklaces to sell for pennies on the Net, as long as you do it for 30 hours a week and you’ll get coverage.

Now THAT’S a system I’ll take any day over universal health care. Freedom, choice, independence, and personal responsibility. Me likes. :)

Sorry for the interruption, but I do hope I’ve shed a different kind of light on this given my experiences in the matter at hand. :)

Everyone’s just afraid of authority. The only way to solve most issues is to revolt against those who threaten our freedom. Moore may be criticized but so can a million other people. People need to understand that little differences in thought can’t compare to big similarities in thought. People with similar views should band together and express views rather than bringing each other down. This site teaches people things but it’s teaching in a bad way. It’s just another hateful site and it brings conflict between us all. Moore is doing something and most of us here do nothing but criticize and argue. He might not be perfect but it’s better to dedicate our lives to change rather than sitting here on the internet bashing someone. We need to start over in this world and it’s difficult when people push us around. Let’s not push eachother around. It’s useless.

The LAST thing I would ever want is the government getting involved with my body and my health.

I understand this, but I dont think an insurance company (which is not really in the health care business) is such a great step up.  And Im sure you are not basing it on this, but I have heard MANY misconceptions about the govts role in health care up here.  Even some of the commercials Ive seen in the US, saying things like ‘youll have to call some govt agency for permission to see your family doctor’.  Obviously it doesnt work like this at all.  Its very seamless.

There are drawbacks of course.  You cant just decide on your own to do anything you want.  Like, I have a bit of a headache right now.  I couldnt really just go on my own and get an MRI tomorrow just because I felt like it.  Im guessing you could in the US.  So no, I dont have full control.

Also issues with the quality of care.  My family for instance, we have our own neurosurgeon.  My sister still speaks with him a few times a year (she has ongoing monitoring).  He is also Walter Gretzkys neurosurgeon (father of Wayne Gretzky).  He knows what he is doing!

That does sound like it worked out well for you, thats awesome.  I guess if you can find little loopholes like that, its not too bad at all.  Do you even have to prove that you are working 30 hours a week?

I understand this, but I dont think an insurance company (which is not really in the health care business) is such a great step up.

I guess we have to agree to disagree here. First of all, I do believe insurance companies are part of the health care business, but they shouldn’t be the end all and be of of it. As for in not being a great step up, I’ll say this - when I was a college and later a grad student I had horrid insurance. I was locked into an HMO and, largely because of it, bad things happened. When we got our current insurance we made sure we got an open PPO and that has made all the difference. Most people think insurance and think HMO, but more and more people and businesses are going POS or PPO, which ups the quality of care. I’ve honestly had nothing but fantastic dealings with my insurance carrier - I can’t say the same about people I know on the government dole. If people take the time to research their health care and make pro-active choices things really can be great. I don’t think I could say that if I was locked into any particular system. Even the thought of being locked into any particular system is kind of frightening - I want to make my own choices about my body, and I can under this system.

And Im sure you are not basing it on this, but I have heard MANY misconceptions about the govts role in health care up here.  Even some of the commercials Ive seen in the US, saying things like ‘youll have to call some govt agency for permission to see your family doctor’.  Obviously it doesnt work like this at all.  Its very seamless.

Nope, not basing it on any of that. I’m basing my statements on how I’ve seen people on Medicaid and Medicare treated, and it’s horrifying sometimes. The standard of care is terrible, the limitations and cost restrictions insane. I don’t know how I could survive in that system… thus, I don’t want anything to do with a government run system.

There are drawbacks of course.  You cant just decide on your own to do anything you want.  Like, I have a bit of a headache right now.  I couldnt really just go on my own and get an MRI tomorrow just because I felt like it.  Im guessing you could in the US.  So no, I dont have full control.

When I needed an emergency CAT I got one within an hour. When I needed an emergency MRI I got one within a day. Recently I had to run a long series of tests to deal with a potentially very bad medical problem and I got everything done in three days. I pick my own doctors and if I don’t like something that’s been done I can switch without impunity. I have never had a single claim denied. I really can’t complain, and if we just opened up the insurance borders everyone could have this level of care. Is is expensive? Hell yes! But we chose our level of insurance because of my poor health. What we pay in premiums we MORE than make up for in other areas. I really wouldn’t trade what I have for the world, even if it does cost a bundle.

Also issues with the quality of care.  My family for instance, we have our own neurosurgeon.  My sister still speaks with him a few times a year (she has ongoing monitoring).  He is also Walter Gretzkys neurosurgeon (father of Wayne Gretzky).  He knows what he is doing!

That’s true for me as well. I’ve seen a top doc or two in my day, as has Jim. All of my doctors have been hand-picked by me to fit my specific needs. No one is assigned to me by my insurance or other doctors. We have our own everything in this family. ;)

That does sound like it worked out well for you, thats awesome.  I guess if you can find little loopholes like that, its not too bad at all.  Do you even have to prove that you are working 30 hours a week?

See, this is the thing… loopholes like this are EVERYWHERE. You just have to have the tenacity to look for them. If health care is important to you you can find a way to get it. This goes to gitarcarver’s statements about the unmotivated getting all the benefits from universal care. I tend to believe much the same because I know from my own experience that when there is a will there’s a way, and if you really need insurance you can find a way to get it. If you don’t pursue it… well… I don’t have much sympathy for that. I gotta be honest there.

Yes, you have to attest and sign a binding contract that you are working 30-35 hours a week. Thy don’t ask for tax records up front but you do have to attest to it. At any time the insurance carrier can ask for proof like tax forms if they doubt your statement, so you’d really better be working! But, like I said, it doesn’t have to be a huge business. If we had a business knitting socks for sale on the Net and made no money it would count as a business and we could get insurance. As long as you work and have been in business for over 6 months you can get coverage here. So yes, great state plan. :)

This is kind of funny, but....

When I needed an emergency CAT I got one within an hour.

Me too!

When I needed an emergency MRI I got one within a day.

My sister did too!

Dan, if we hadn’t had Tardykins posting all throughout this thread, that would have been one of the most worthless and empty comments I’ve seen on Moorewatch in a long time. It sounds like it’s straight from Obama’s campaign rhetoric. You just need a little more hope mixed in there with all your change.

Ummm, I dont really see how that addresses what I was saying, but ok.

I fail to see how it doesn’t.  You want to say that the idea might have merit because it “sounds good,” or “it works in other countries.” That’s great but it is dead in the water here until the Constitution is changed.  We have steps in place on how to change the Constitution and until those are taken, I don’t care if the idea is that we have magic wands that can cure people of everything.  My allegiance - and that of the military, the Congress and the President - is to the document that starts out with “We the People...”

Maybe that sounds obsessive to you.  Maybe you can’t understand following an ideal rather than an idea.  But I have been around on this earth way too long not so have seen how ideas that sound good today are lousy tomorrow or 10 years from now. 

There is a reason we have the Constitution.  It is a document that limits governmental intrusion into the private lives of citizens and into the choices those citizens make.  Expanding the government’s power means decreasing private citizen’s self autonomy and freedom.  That may sound like a great idea to you.

Not to me.

You think Joe chooses to die?  Ok.

I don’t know what Joe chooses other that if Joe chooses not to have insurance and then has an issue, he bears the consequences of his choices.  We can discuss whether society should help Joe, but society is not the same as the government tax man and some bureaucrat. 

Ok, we can leave this alone.  Youre just going off on tangents, and not addressing what I was saying.

No, it does address what you are saying, but because you are set in one mind set, you just believe that it doesn’t.  You make the claim that getting rid of the bill because of one provision is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” I content that the bathwater is contaminated with feces from the mindset of those who wrote the bill.  That pasage is just one example of the mindset seen throughout the bill.  But there is something deeper as well.  You claim to be against “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” but yet have no problem with the idea of trashing an entire system, raising taxes, lowering the quality of services, rationing services, creating 111 new governmental bureaucracies, raising premiums, and open the door to more regulations and lawsuits to insure less than 3% of the population.  THAT is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but you don’t seem to have an issue with that. 

For the life I me, I can’t understand why.

Most 18-24yos when I was that age were fairly broke!  The college experience may be different down there.  Ballpark, what would insurance cost for someone like this, say with asthma and chronic bronchitis?

Well, to answer your question I walked across the street and asked a 23 year old who has chronic asthma and a back problem.  He pays about $3 a day - less than $100 a month.  Kids in college pay even less because the first responder - the college itself - supplies medical care.  But one thing you are missing.  Your contention that 18-24 year olds are broke does not match the data.  During that age period, people have the MOST disposable income.  Most people that age choose not to purchase insurance because they are “invincible” in their minds.  They make a choice.

You might call that big govt, but I just look at things on a case by case basis.

Yet everyone pays for police service.  By your own admission, there will be people that won’t pay for health care and yet will receive it.  Once again, you fail to address the central issue of “why should one group of people who are responsible pay for those who are not?” Why should the government determine a choice for a person that has no effect on anyone else?

Is it just that you dont want your tax dollars going to help either group?

First, you make the assumption that it will “help” anyone.  The evidence is greater that it will hurt more people than help.  Secondly, I am not sure how to put this any better other than to repeat I don’t want my dollars to be used in a system that will raise costs, lower care standards, put people out of work, put people in jail, etc, etc, etc.  I don’t want any system in place that is contrary to the Constitution.

Pardon me, i’ve just registered to say this very simple thing, i’m not a political reviewer our even a very addicted movie viewer, i simply don’t see any sense in your posts here, you’re blindly so increadibly biased, i came to this site to read some smart mind storms, and all i get is an “good-ol-American-stereotype” whose greatest deed was to take statements out of context to make a documentary movie producer look stupid, god you people are dumb, no wonder you can’t identify or locate your own states or major cities, you’ve got your brains so full of lard from fast-food restaurants that you can’t think straight anymore. An advice to you pal, get a life, return to Australia or wherever you’ve lived already, you think America is so great, but all i see is a really big patch of land filled with rednecks, superfluous pricks, Ipod-stapled-to-the-head teens, porn addicted middle-class/middle-age man and alienated housewives, your only reason for survival in this planet is your exquisite talent to buy your way through everything, that’s right, because anything that you have worth for is either developed abroad or developed by imported minds… The world is sick of you and your snobbish attitudes you pedantic pricks
Signed: Europe

So Joe in your example is one of those people who carefully chose not to get insurance. And then got cancer, so he’ll just have to deal with his choice.

How about if we change Joes story a bit. He chose to get insurance. But he gets laid off. He no longer can afford to pay for healthcare. Two years later he gets cancer.

I would suspect that Joe now is worthy of help. But how? Charity could work, but how did that help Joe when the healthcare was not there? You know, when he really should have checked that little lump out - had he only afforded it.

And how is charity ever going to reach every single Joe out there?

Answer is, I don’t think it can. One thing I do believe though, is that a western democracy can afford having excellent care for every single person in a country, without matching that with extreme tax levels, or with rationed care. US could afford it, and save money doing it.

I fail to see how it doesn’t.  You want to say that the idea might have merit because it “sounds good,” or “it works in other countries.”

When did I say it works in other countries?  There is no need to put words in my mouth.  Yes, there is a process to make change.  So it is possible.  Im not saying it should be done on a whim, or recklessly, but it is possible.  You didnt say the constitution prohibited it, just that its not clear.  Is leaving things not clear the better solution?  I would think your Constitution could be updated as times change, but obviously very very carefully.  Im not saying 100% this is one of those times, Im just saying its possible.

No, it does address what you are saying, but because you are set in one mind set, you just believe that it doesn’t.

No, you are just going way offtrack, and again, putting words in my mouth.  All I said was, that one provision alone, which is obv a ridiculous one, is not reason on its own to kill the whole idea.  You have many other valid reasons for not liking the idea.  That one provision is immaterial considering the validity of your many other reasons.

Yet everyone pays for police service.  By your own admission, there will be people that won’t pay for health care and yet will receive it.

I dont understand this.  Here, everyone who pays taxes, is contributing to both (health care and police services).  How would one pay for police services, yet not health care?

Oh, and I still dont understand the whole thing about not having a worry in the world as far as health care costs go, if the person has ever paid into an auto insurance plan.  Can you explain that one?

First, you make the assumption that it will “help” anyone.  The evidence is greater that it will hurt more people than help.  Secondly, I am not sure how to put this any better other than to repeat I don’t want my dollars to be used in a system that will raise costs, lower care standards, put people out of work, put people in jail, etc, etc, etc.  I don’t want any system in place that is contrary to the Constitution.

Well see, those are valid arguments, but that is not what you said earlier, and that was all I was addressing.  You said…

Once again, my largest argument is taking from those who act responsible and basically “rewarding” those who do not.

I really dont think that is your ‘largest argument’.  Sounds to me like you have much bigger (and better) reasons to be against the whole idea.  I was only addressing the ‘rewarding those who do not’ idea because I think it is invalid.

I would suspect that Joe now is worthy of help. But how?

Which of course is where Medicaid and Medicare come into play.

One thing I do believe though, is that a western democracy can afford having excellent care for every single person in a country, without matching that with extreme tax levels, or with rationed care. US could afford it, and save money doing it.

You are free to believe whatever you wish.  There is no doubt that the quality of care will go down.  The CBO acknowledges that the overall cost of the program and premiums will increase.  The currently proposed bill - and every bill that has been proposed so far - has included tax increases.  I am not sure where you are getting your utopic beliefs from, but they are not grounded in reality.

When did I say it works in other countries?

Ny bad.  I really thought that the Canadian Health Care system was for the country of Canada.

You didnt say the constitution prohibited it, just that its not clear.

No, what I said is that it is Constitutionally prohibited and then addressed the two clauses that people use to try and justify it.  It is similar to saying “speeding is illegal,” and then addressing the excuse of “I was just keeping up with traffic.” Addressing the excuse or the argument doesn’t change the fact that speeding is still against the law.

All I said was, that one provision alone, which is obv a ridiculous one, is not reason on its own to kill the whole idea.

That is your position.  You chose to view the provision as a single line item while I choose to address it as a symptom.  In that the Democrats are not willing to kill that obviously horrible provision, it does become a deal breaker and a killer.

How would one pay for police services, yet not health care? 

Do you think that everyone pays taxes?  But let me try this again.....  When someone pays taxes for police, there is a benefit to them.  When someone who pays taxes for someone else’s health care, in addition to their health care, there is a limited benefit and one not proportional to the tax.  You are happy with that system as you have been raised with it.  I, on the other hand, as an American, am not thrilled with it.

if the person has ever paid into an auto insurance plan.  Can you explain that one?

If you are going to say that I put words in your mouth, at least have the courtesy to understand that I never said anything about “auto insurance” other than the horrible comparison liberals and the President try to make in equating auto insurance with health insurance.

I was only addressing the ‘rewarding those who do not’ idea because I think it is invalid. 

I am not sure why you believe that it is invalid.  The original number that the President and Democrats floated was that there were 47 million people without insurance in this country.

Of that 47 million, 11-12 million are here illegally and should not be supported.  (That is another totally different issue.)

Fifteen to seventeen million people are people who in the last census who said that within the last year, they had no insurance.  The Census Bureau estimated that meant roughly half of the people were without insurance at the time the question was asked.  As people change jobs, find jobs, change carriers, etc, a person may be without insurance for a short period of time, but the people that do not have insurance all the time is much less.  Thus the figure of 8 - 10 million people not having insurance that I have used here.  (I always try to err on the high side when using numbers.)

The last 15 - 17 million people that do not have insurance do not have insurance by CHOICE.  Let me repeat that. 

BY.

CHOICE.

Whether it is because they do not want to spend the money when they can afford it or whether they are young and think they are invincible, they make a CHOICE.

So yeah, out of the whole bunch of people, 8-10 people would need help.  I have no problems with that and have said so many times in this thread.  The money can be gleamed from the waste and fraud in the system now.  Tort reform would help as well, but that too is another issue.

But the people who choose not to do the responsible thing - the 15 - 17 million people - how are they my responsibility? 

You seem like an intelligent person so I am having a hard time dealing with the fact that you are focusing on the 8-10 million people I would help and simply ignore the 15-17 million that make a choice to be in the circumstances they are now in.

At least my idea (which is the same idea of many) addresses the actual problem instead of creating more problems. It still allows for freedom instead of oppression. 

It allows for consequences from people’s actions rather than no consequences because the government will bail people out.

You may disagree with that ideal.  That is your choice.  But that ideal is what we were founded up.

Hey guys? Anyone willing to discuss my example and talk about how breaking down state lines and allowing everyone access to state who have great insurance laws like CT does will allow those who are motivated to get insurance to do so without more governmental spending or intrusion?

No?

Okay. Well… I tried. :/

For madsocks- You took the time to register, and all you can come up with is a blanket statement about Americans, and then sign off with another blanket statement about Europeans? Now, put Mr. Anger back into his Happy Box, and make an informed, cogent statement about what we’re talking about. Or go away.

Donna,

I think it’s a great idea! Imagine...the free market bringing down costs through competition. But hey, that only works with electronics, fast food, cars, houses, internet service providers, appliances, medical equipment, office supplies, auto insurance, heavy equipment, computer software, package delivery, air travel…

It wouldn’t work with medical insurance. I mean, look at the Post Office and Medicare. Those are two sterling examples of well-run government machines. Those are the Priuses of the government program fleet! Surely THEY can save us.

By choice, you say.

Bad choices lead to bad consequences. The question is h o w bad, they should be allowed to be, when it comes to healthcare. Death for neglecting to pay for health insurance is a bit hard in my opinion.

Besides. How are you going to seperate your two groups from eachother? What was it? 8-10 million deserving, and 15-17 not bad choice makers?

The question is h o w bad, they should be allowed to be, when it comes to healthcare.

I see.  So every outcome in health care must be positive or else it is the fault of someone or a lack of money? 

Interesting premise.  I guess because you would want to lessen consequences, you would be in favor outlawing drinking, fatty foods, smoking, and anything else the government says is bad for you?  It is the extension of your argument, isn’t it?  If you want to limit the consequences, you must want to limit the causes.

Death for neglecting to pay for health insurance is a bit hard in my opinion.

I just want to make sure that I understand your premise here.  A person makes a choice - a known choice - with known consequences (including death.) Now under what legal or moral code allows you to say “I am your nanny, you can’t make that choice?”

In your opinion an adult cannot make choices?  You or someone else has to decide what is in their best interest? 

How does that person’s choice impact me?  They are responsible for the bills they incur, right?  Or are you saying that people aren’t responsible for the bills they make?

Besides. How are you going to seperate your two groups from eachother?

You mean you can’t tell a person that has lost their insurance because they lost their job and a person who doesn’t have insurance because they choose not to pay for it? 

The basic premise of what I am saying is that if one wants society to help them, they have to be willing to help society.

I guess because you would want to lessen consequences, you would be in favor outlawing drinking, fatty foods, smoking, and anything else the government says is bad for you?  It is the extension of your argument, isn’t it?  If you want to limit the consequences, you must want to limit the causes.

I’m not in favour of outlawing drinking, fatty foods or smoking. People should be able to whatever without getting rationed care, or more expensive insurance. Healthy and working people should be mandated by law (ie. taxes), to carry an extra burden for those who are not so healthy, and for those who don’t make wise enough choices. I’m basically saying; We pick up the tab for those who are sick, for those who are unfortunate and for those who are just plain unresponsible.

In your opinion an adult cannot make choices?  You or someone else has to decide what is in their best interest? 

How does that person’s choice impact me?  They are responsible for the bills they incur, right?  Or are you saying that people aren’t responsible for the bills they make?

I believe that people often make choices that aren’t so smart. Young people, for instance, often believe that they are invinsible, and therefore drink too much when they drink. They also take more chances when they ski. Or spend too much time in the sun. Or have unprotected sex. They should not be penalized for those choices when it comes to being cared for. They already are penalized enough for the lung cancer, the melanoma, for the vd, for the fractured bone.

People are relatively free (there are laws) to choose their behavoiur. They just should not be able to opt out of protection from society. Just as you can’t opt out from police protection. Or military protection. Or from <insert any government/nanny state program you already have here>.

You mean you can’t tell a person that has lost their insurance because they lost their job and a person who doesn’t have insurance because they choose not to pay for it?

I’m just saying that there will be gray areas. Plenty of them. You seeming like an intelligent guy, I’m sure you realize this.

Here’s a gray area: The nearest police station to my house is a state police barracks about 35 miles away.

Have I, in effect, opted out of police protection?

I’m not in favour of outlawing drinking, fatty foods or smoking.

Why not?  If we have to pick up the tab for the risky and irresponsible behaviour of not having insurance, why don’t we have to right to limit risky behgaviours that add to costs that I am paying?

People should be able to whatever without getting rationed care, or more expensive insurance.

Socialized health care will result in rationed health care.  There is no way around it. 

If you go to the store and buy a gallon of ice cream, and some guy comes in front of you with 2 gallons of ice cream.  The register rings up the same amount for both of you.  It doesn’t matter how much ice cream you buy, the price is the same.  So why do you feel that a person who uses more services , incurs more costs, and in many cases, make ricky choices and pay the same as the citizen who lives well, eats right, doesn’t make the same risky choices?

We pick up the tab for those who are sick, for those who are unfortunate and for those who are just plain unresponsible.

I understand what you are saying.  What you have failed to say is why.  “Just because” is not a good enough reason.  “Just because” is not enough to reach into my pocket, lower the level of my care, raise premiums, etc.

They just should not be able to opt out of protection from society.

So you believe that some sort of nebulous group of people called “society” can decide how you lead your life better than you can? 

Just as you can’t opt out from police protection.

Actually, you can in some areas.  You can ask police not to patrol your property, etc.  Also, there is no regulation or Constitutional duty FOR the police to protect you.

Or military protection.

The military doesn’t protect me.  It protects the Constitution.  That is where the loyalty of the military lies.  In essence, you just said that you can’t opt out of the Constitution, and yet that is what you want with government run health care. 

I’m just saying that there will be gray areas. Plenty of them. You seeming like an intelligent guy, I’m sure you realize this.

Health care remaining privatized is not a grey area.  I am sure you realize that as we.  Government takeover of an entire industry is not a grey area either.

Why not?  If we have to pick up the tab for the risky and irresponsible behaviour of not having insurance, why don’t we have to right to limit risky behgaviours that add to costs that I am paying?

Because we aren’t socialists. We don’t like major freedom intrusions. All we want to do, is to add another nanny state benefit, to the ones that are already present.

Socialized health care will result in rationed health care.  There is no way around it.

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

If you go to the store and buy a gallon of ice cream, and some guy comes in front of you with 2 gallons of ice cream.  The register rings up the same amount for both of you.  It doesn’t matter how much ice cream you buy, the price is the same.  So why do you feel that a person who uses more services , incurs more costs, and in many cases, make ricky choices and pay the same as the citizen who lives well, eats right, doesn’t make the same risky choices?

Healthcare is not icecream. I don’t accept the notion that all services are the same. They aren’t. 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 just add healthcare-for-all into that mix. It’s no biggie. Frankly you could be a super-duper-extremist-rightwing-mega-conservative (tm) and still believe in healthcare for all. Plenty of rightwing regimes all over the industrialized world see it as such.

I understand what you are saying.  What you have failed to say is why.  “Just because” is not a good enough reason.  “Just because” is not enough to reach into my pocket, lower the level of my care, raise premiums, etc.

I have told you why. You just don’t agree with me. Sick people should be protected. Because it’s the right thing to do. It’s my moral stance. You apparently think differently, but that does not mean that I haven’t told you why.

Actually, you can in some areas.  You can ask police not to patrol your property, etc.  Also, there is no regulation or Constitutional duty FOR the police to protect you.

Sure. You can opt out put from ‘using’ any public service. But you can’t call the IRS and get tax rebates for choosing not to use highways, national defense, police, firedepartments, education, libraries…

Health care remaining privatized is not a grey area.  I am sure you realize that as we.  Government takeover of an entire industry is not a grey area either.

So don’t nationalise it then. That’s not a necessity. Choose a private system, like the one you have today. Just add a safety net for the un-insured. Japan does that. Taiwan does it too. And Switzerland.

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.