"Obamacare" or UHC?

Dittohead not! · Jul 21, 2012

Excon said:
I haven't seen one yet that comes even close to being able to provide what one can receive by paying for it individually.
And by "receive", I am speaking not only about quality, but the actual service performed also.
Just because others can not afford it, matters not, because they aren't going to receive that level of care under any UHC program unless they have been elected or appointed to a high position in Government.

You haven't been looking too closely if you haven't seen other health care systems that work as well as or better than ours at a much lower cost.

I think you could also find examples of superior health care for the elite and wealthy in some parts of the world as well, yes. Is that really what we want here?

Mycroft · Jul 21, 2012

zgoldsmith23 said:
How do you screw up a Third World country? They're already screwed up. Nice try.

You do it by trying to "help" the poor. They would end up destroying the few people who have the ability to earn a lot of money by trying to take it all away. The result would be worse than their feel-good goals. After they succeed in failing, the citizens will dust off their AK's and deal with the situation.

radcen · Jul 21, 2012

If we did eventually get UHC, and the government were paying for it*, would the government also enact tort reform? At least regarding health care and itself, I mean. They like to exempt themselves from liability whenever possible.

*- I know, I know, it'd be the taxpayers, buy please play along for the sake of discussion.

Excon · Jul 21, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
You haven't been looking too closely if you haven't seen other health care systems that work as well as or better than ours at a much lower cost.

Not on an individual basis.
As they say, you get what you pay for.

Dittohead not! said:
I think you could also find examples of superior health care for the elite and wealthy in some parts of the world as well, yes.

Of course you can. If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be.
If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

Dittohead not! said:
Is that really what we want here?

We want not to be forced to pay for someone else's care. That is unfair to an extreme.
They should provided for themselves.
And if they can't. They don't get it.

Cardinal Fang · Jul 21, 2012

radcen said:
If we did eventually get UHC, and the government were paying for it*, would the government also enact tort reform? At least regarding health care and itself, I mean. They like to exempt themselves from liability whenever possible.

A majority of states has already enacted some version of tort reform. It hasn't reduced malpractice premiums and it hasn't lowered health care costs. It has helped protect those at fault from being held accountable for very serious injuries done often enough through simple recklessness to other and unsuspecting persons.

Once upon a time, the federal goverment was immune from many liability claims under concepts of soveriegn immunity that date back to well before Europeans began to build colonies here. That would all have been prior to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1948. Over all or most of your lifetime then, private parties have been able to sue the United States in federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on its behalf.

Cardinal Fang · Jul 21, 2012

Excon said:
Not on an individual basis. As they say, you get what you pay for.

Health care is inherently provided on an individual basis. In the US, we DO NOT get what we pay for. We pay a lot and end up with crappy care. Not much of a bargain, is it.

Excon said:
Of course you can. If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be. If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

LOL! Health care is not free in any system.

Excon said:
We want not to be forced to pay for someone else's care. That is unfair to an extreme. They should provided for themselves. And if they can't. They don't get it.

How do you feel about the military protecting you? How about the diplomatic corps representing you? Or the National Weather Service giving you all those free weather reports like that? Better if it were tightly rationed so that only rich people could afford to know what the weather was going to be?

Aberration · Jul 21, 2012

StillBallin75 said:
I'm beginning to think that we should just have a "libertarian opt-out" for everything. Better yet why don't we set aside a parcel of land so that the libertarians can have their own paradise lol. That would be quite an experiment.

I would move in a heartbeat.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 21, 2012

Mycroft said:
You do it by trying to "help" the poor. They would end up destroying the few people who have the ability to earn a lot of money by trying to take it all away. The result would be worse than their feel-good goals. After they succeed in failing, the citizens will dust off their AK's and deal with the situation.

Then it wouldn't be any worse.

radcen · Jul 21, 2012

StillBallin75 said:
I'm beginning to think that we should just have a "libertarian opt-out" for everything. Better yet why don't we set aside a parcel of land so that the libertarians can have their own paradise lol. That would be quite an experiment.

I would love to be on that parcel of land so I could see people's faces when the realization sets in that most people who claim to be liberty-loving are really just selfish opportunists disguised as liberty lovers. It will always be the latter that will thwart any real attempt at such a society.

Aberration · Jul 21, 2012

radcen said:
I would love to be on that parcel of land so I could see people's faces when the realization sets in that most people who claim to be liberty-loving are really just selfish opportunists disguised as liberty lovers. It will always be the latter that will thwart any real attempt at such a society.

Right... because not wanting to be compelled to do things must mean that given the opportunity you would not do things on your own.

Karl · Jul 21, 2012

Excon said:
Catawba said:

[...] And apparently you missed the vote on the Iraq war, almost every single Republican voted for it while a majority of Democrats voted against it. [...]

Click to expand...

lol The vote i s pretty much what is considered bipartisan. Sorry you don't like that.

And if you want to be specific. Only those democrats in the house were a majority of nay votes.

[...]

A typical exambpe of the right wing interpretation of reality. From the poster's own numbers (both hoises of Congress combined):

Total Reps voting Yes: 263 No: 7
Total Dems voting Yes: 110 No: 147
Total Inds voting Yes: 0 No: 2

In RightWingWorld, that is a bipartisan vote

. . . while the poster proves Catawba's point on the majority of the Dems voting No. Confused? Welcome to the club.

Excon said:
[....] The real problem here is that you buy into the propaganda [...] and then try to blow it up our collective asses.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall; who's the smokiest, of them all? :2razz:

Catawba · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
Your question and premiss is false.

Those organizations are all biased by what they believe should be.
And then they pass judgement based on it.
That would be like judging the US solely on a socialist's/communist's requirement of what a Government should be.
That would be like judging the US solely on a liberal's/democrat's requirement of what a Government should be.
That would be like judging the US solely on a conservative's/republican's requirement of what a Government should be.
It is wrong to do that.
You may agree with it, but it is still wrong.

As already pointed out, the WHO organizations criteria was flawed.
And they Judged this County's HC on it. They were wrong and even admitted it.

The real problem here is that you buy into the propaganda that they put forth and then try to blow it up our collective asses.

No where in your post can I find reference to any authoritative world health organizations making the claim that private health care provides better health outcomes for less costs.

Excon · Jul 22, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
In the US, we DO NOT get what we pay for. We pay a lot and end up with crappy care. Not much of a bargain, is it.

:doh Yes we do.

Cardinal Fang said:
LOL! Health care is not free in any system.

:doh Way not to take the word in context of what was being said. :doh

Cardinal Fang said:
How do you feel about the military protecting you? How about the diplomatic corps representing you? Or the National Weather Service giving you all those free weather reports like that? Better if it were tightly rationed so that only rich people could afford to know what the weather was going to be?

Wow!
Totally off point.

Excon · Jul 22, 2012

Karl said:
A typical exambpe of the right wing interpretation of reality. From the poster's own numbers (both hoises of Congress combined):

Total Reps voting Yes: 263 No: 7
Total Dems voting Yes: 110 No: 147
Total Inds voting Yes: 0 No: 2

In RightWingWorld, that is a bipartisan vote . . . while the poster proves Catawba's point on the majority of the Dems voting No. Confused? Welcome to the club.

Typical example of someone on the left being unable to formulate an argument against what is pointed out, so ignores it, and then tries to flip the script.

It had bipartisan support, as evidence from the votes and the co-sponsors. That was the point that the reply tried to spin.

And way to ignore that the majority of Senate Democrats voted for it.
Combine their numbers with the house and spin it all you want. The majority of Senate Democrats still voted for it.

Karl said:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall; who's the smokiest, of them all?

Because of your attempt to spin... it is now you.

Catawba said:
No where in your post can I find reference to any authoritative world health organizations making the claim that private health care provides better health outcomes for less costs.

:doh ha, ha, ha!
lol
And you are not going to because as you were already told.

Your question and premiss is false.

Those organizations are all biased by what they believe should be.

But you already know that, which is why you are trying to hold it out as if it means something, when it clearly doesn't.
That is dishonesty in debate.

Your question had a false premiss. And I pointed out why.

Dittohead not! · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
Not on an individual basis.
As they say, you get what you pay for.

Of course you can. If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be.
If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

We want not to be forced to pay for someone else's care. That is unfair to an extreme.
They should provided for themselves.
And

if they can't. They don't get it.

So, anyone who can't afford health care just has to take their chances. Can't afford to have that bypass? OK, natural selection, then.

and, what we need is the sort of system that the least livable of the third world has.

I have to admit, from the standpoint of extreme ideology, that does make sense.

Excon · Jul 22, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
So, anyone who can't afford health care just has to take their chances. Can't afford to have that bypass? OK, natural selection, then.

That is nature.

And if you can afford to purchase the efforts and product of another person, go ahead.

Dittohead not! said:
I have to admit, from the standpoint of extreme ideology, that does make sense.

There is nothing extreme about about it.

But being forced to pay for another's care is an unnatural extreme.

Cardinal Fang · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
:doh Yes we do. :doh Way not to take the word in context of what was being said. :doh Wow! Totally off point.

Doltish claims and babbling are not a response to anything. The US pays the most and receives the least in terms of health care among developed economies. That is NOT a good deal.

The literal meaning of "free' is exactly what was meant in the context referenced. Let me refresh your already fading memory...

If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be. If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

"Free" is being contrasted with "paying for" something. Your bad.

The fact that we (including you) routinely share the costs of all sorts of things is obviously germane to some mindless claim that it wouild be "unfair to an extreme" that this should occur in health care (which of course it already does).

Cardinal Fang · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
Typical example of someone on the left being unable to formulate an argument against what is pointed out, so ignores it, and then tries to flip the script. It had bipartisan support, as evidence from the votes and the co-sponsors. That was the point that the reply tried to spin. And way to ignore that the majority of Senate Democrats voted for it. Combine their numbers with the house and spin it all you want. The majority of Senate Democrats still voted for it.

Just a reminder that the October 2002 Senate vote was a formality. Bush had the votes to pass his reolution and everyone knew it beforehand. The last bit of drama (if you want to call it that) was Daschle's visit to the White House to seek wording changes that of course Bush refused.

The vote itself was meaningless for Democrats. Bush had called for bipartisan support in order to present a united front to the world as he headed off to the UN in hopes of obtaining new resolutions that would assure that Iraq had disarmed. So you could either go along with that, take Bush at his word, allow politics to stop at the water's edge, and vote for the resolution. Or you could say this Bush character is a born liar and has no intention at all of jumping through any of these supposed hoops but is simply going to rush off hellbent and halfcocked in pursuing a stupid, unnecessary, and disastrous war, and vote against the resolution. History has shown us which of those two takes on the matter was the correct one.

Excon · Jul 22, 2012

Cardinal Fang said:
Just a reminder that the October 2002 Senate vote was a formality. Bush had the votes to pass his reolution and everyone knew it beforehand. The last bit of drama (if you want to call it that) was Daschle's visit to the White House to seek wording changes that of course Bush refused.

The vote itself was meaningless for Democrats. Bush had called for bipartisan support in order to present a united front to the world as he headed off to the UN in hopes of obtaining new resolutions that would assure that Iraq had disarmed. So you could either go along with that, take Bush at his word, allow politics to stop at the water's edge, and vote for the resolution. Or you could say this Bush character is a born liar and has no intention at all of jumping through any of these supposed hoops but is simply going to rush off hellbent and halfcocked in pursuing a stupid, unnecessary, and disastrous war, and vote against the resolution. History has shown us which of those two takes on the matter was the correct one.

And?
Are we done with the Bush BS now?

Cardinal Fang said:
Doltish claims and babbling are not a response to anything.

I am very glad you understand that much. Since you do, please stop doing so.

Cardinal Fang said:
The US pays the most and receives the least in terms of health care among developed economies. That is NOT a good deal.

:doh A claim based on faulty studies. LOL

Cardinal Fang said:
Excon said:

Cardinal Fang said:

Excon said:

Of course you can. If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be.
If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

Click to expand...

LOL! Health care is not free in any system.

Click to expand...

:doh Way not to take the word in context of what was being said. :doh

Click to expand...

The literal meaning of "free' is exactly what was meant in the context referenced. Let me refresh your already fading memory...

If they pay for the care they receive... so what? It is as it should be. If instead they are getting free but superior care in a UHC system, whether they are rich or just privileged, it just demonstrates the inherit unfairness in such a system.

"Free" is being contrasted with "paying for" something. Your bad.

I can't believe this even needs to be addressed.
Which is exactly why your reply was doltish.
Let me refresh your memory.

Do you remember reading the following?

"We want not to be forced to pay for someone else's care."

If you do not understand that signifies an understanding what free means, in context, something is wrong with your thinker.
But instead of recognizing how I used "free", you chose to go with the most basic understanding of it and then make an absurd claim, because you did not consider it in context of what was being said as a whole.

But let's see just how absurd you reply was.

If a UHC system exists, all paying in their fair share and such, a person receiving superior care in regards to the rest of the people, that treatment being above and beyond what is normally provided to everybody, is being given to that person "free", or in other words, on the backs of the rest of the payers, which obviously makes it unfair as stated.

Which makes your claim of "Health care is not free in any system." an absurd reply to what I said.

Cardinal Fang said:
The fact that we (including you) routinely share the costs of all sorts of things is obviously germane to some mindless claim that it wouild be "unfair to an extreme" that this should occur in health care (which of course it already does).

lol
Stop your doltish babble. Again... The context being discussed.
As in the example; In a UHC nation, a class of people receiving superior care is obviously unfair to an extreme, because they are then receiving better than the rest. That should be commonsense.

As for sharing costs in general... Some things are needed simply for the running of the Nation, conducting business and protecting the investment.
UHC is not needed for that.

radcen · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
That is nature.

And if you can afford to purchase the efforts and product of another person, go ahead.

There is nothing extreme about about it.

But being forced to pay for another's care is an unnatural extreme.

Is it?

Humans naturally have the ability to think and act and collectively carve out a more desirable living condition than what nature provides as a base. And humans have not only survived, but thrived, when they worked together for mutual benefit. What you're suggesting is that we revert back to being simply big dumb animals.

Excon · Jul 22, 2012

radcen said:
Humans naturally have the ability to think and act and collectively carve out a more desirable living condition than what nature provides as a base.

Voluntary action, not forced or coerced, is fine.
Funny thing is that those on the UHC side of things have had all this time to start their own non-profit health insurer. Yet didn't be cause they knew it wasn't sustainable over the long haul unless other people where footing part of the costs. And that is what they will get now unless it is stopped.
Make no mistake about it. Wanting someone else to provide for a person's HC is selfish and greedy.
Stop trying to steal OPP under the guise of helping. It is bs.

radcen said:
And humans have not only survived, but thrived, when they worked together for mutual benefit.

Yeah, and until recently, all without UHC.
Go figure. Huh?

And what happens when we interfere with others, such as providing clean water, food etc...?
We inevitably increase their suffering, because they breed more and cause an increased consumption of resources, when they barely had enough for themselves to begin with.

And as to resources... Th worlds resources are dwindling, that isn't going to stop.
We need to stop thinking about measures that will increase the population, and start focusing on measure that will start decreasing it.
Unless you do not care about the mass suffering in the future that will occur if we don't.

radcen said:
What you're suggesting is that we revert back to being simply big dumb animals.

That is an utter ridiculous assertion, we are animals, and some are big, and or dumb.
Healthcare is a product.
One that is not necessary to live a natural life.

And it has been a product for remuneration since it inception.

I am suggesting that it remain what it is. You need it, you pay for it... all of it, or you don't get it.

Not at someone else's forced expense.

Voluntary action, not forced or coerced, is fine.

You do not need it to live a natural life.

radcen · Jul 22, 2012

Excon said:
Voluntary action, not forced or coerced, is fine.
Funny thing is that those on the UHC side of things have had all this time to start their own non-profit health insurer. Yet didn't be cause they knew it wasn't sustainable over the long haul unless other people where footing part of the costs. And that is what they will get now unless it is stopped.
Make no mistake about it. Wanting someone else to provide for a person's HC is selfish and greedy.
Stop trying to steal OPP under the guise of helping. It is bs.

Yeah, and until recently, all without UHC.
Go figure. Huh?

And what happens when we interfere with others, such as providing clean water, food etc...?
We inevitably increase their suffering, because they breed more and cause an increased consumption of resources, when they barely had enough for themselves to begin with.

And as to resources... Th worlds resources are dwindling, that isn't going to stop.
We need to stop thinking about measures that will increase the population, and start focusing on measure that will start decreasing it.
Unless you do not care about the mass suffering in the future that will occur if we don't.

That is an utter ridiculous assertion, we are animals, and some are big, and or dumb.
Healthcare is a product.
One that is not necessary to live a natural life.

And it has been a product for remuneration since it inception.

I am suggesting that it remain what it is. You need it, you pay for it... all of it, or you don't get it.

Not at someone else's forced expense.

Voluntary action, not forced or coerced, is fine.

You do not need it to live a natural life.

Do we do everything perfect? No. Can we do better? You bet. Does literally everything *need* to be improved? No.

The mental gymnastics you use to justify your conclusion are truly impressive.

Neomalthusian · Jul 22, 2012

radcen said:
Do we do everything perfect? No. Can we do better? You bet. Does literally everything *need* to be improved? No.

The mental gymnastics you use to justify your conclusion are truly impressive.

They aren't mental gymnastics, but more like painstaking efforts to get people to understand the non sequitur that just because cooperation works on small scales does not mean that a communistic health care system is appropriate.

His point illustrates that 1) health care is not even a basic need, let alone a basic right, 2) that coercing all those with means to help all those with a need is morally unacceptable, and 3) that helping all those whenever they have a need distorts the risk assessment of creating more mouths to feed.

Aberration · Jul 22, 2012

radcen said:
Is it?

Humans naturally have the ability to think and act and collectively carve out a more desirable living condition than what nature provides as a base. And humans have not only survived, but thrived, when they worked together for mutual benefit. What you're suggesting is that we revert back to being simply big dumb animals.

The part you are missing is that working together for mutual benefit does not need to be compelled. It happens all the time voluntarily. Just as it should.

Catawba · Jul 23, 2012

Excon said:
And you are not going to because as you were already told Your question and premiss is false.

Got it, there is no international health organization that makes the claim that private health care provides better outcomes for less costs.

"Obamacare" or UHC?

Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?

"Obamacare"

Universal Health Care

More options

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Excon

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Aberration

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Aberration

Karl

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Excon

Excon

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Excon

Cardinal Fang

Cardinal Fang

Excon

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Excon

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Neomalthusian

Aberration

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist