The best health care in the world

[GenSeneca]

Can you explain the MAJOR difference between a "right to live" and a "right to life?"

You offer the "right to live" as a right to have everything necessary to live handed to you at someone elses expense. Our Right to Life means that we have a right to not be arbitrarily killed.

How does the "right to pursue happiness" work. . .when one is dying and not receiving health care?

It's a right to pursue happiness, not a guarantee that happiness will be provided to you.

MY foundation is built on fallacy?

Yes. Emotional appeals are a logical fallacy.

Well, I think YOUR foundation is built on fallacy! What difference does that make? You think I'm wrong, but at least I am at peace with my conscience! I think YOU"RE wrong, and believe it or not, my opinion is as valuable and as worthy as yours!

The idea that every opinion is of equal value is itself a fallacy.

 

[BigRob]

I don't believe this question! Are you really trying to focus this question ONLY on COST?

Is it cheaper to provide preventive care for 10,000 people, so they keep their ability to walk, so they do not need a prothesis, so they can continue to do their job without a wheelchair?

Or is it cheaper to pay for 500 people's amputation, pay for prothesis or wheelchairs, and take into account the human cost of it?

Give me a break! YOU, Bob, are not really asking that question! I know you have more humanity than that!

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking, and it remains unanswered.

How much is YOUR foot worth? Do you think the brick layer's foot is worth less than yours?

Well, my foot is worth more to me. I don't think you will find that this viewpoint is outside the norm.

And, by the way. . .MANY countries have shown that it is cheaper to have universal health care than to limit our health care to "private health care only for some people" and government care for the most costly population.

I did explain that several times. . .I am sure if you read through those posts carefully, you can figure it out.

In summary: it is cheaper (per capita) to cover EVERYONE, of EVERY age and health condition with a "medicare" or "non-profit" type insurance than it is
to add the cost of Medicare and Medicaid for the 'HIGH RISK" population AND add the premium paid to private insurance by both independents and their employers.

I didnt ask for generalities, I asked for clear statistical proof that this would be the case in the United States. If you have it, produce it, if not, then I am left to assume your claims are opinion based with no evidentiary support.

There is NO WAY you can show otherwise. . .or our country just doesn't know how to manage health care any other way as a VERY profitable business, where ONLY the wealthy matter, and the rest is disposable.

You are the one claiming it will accomplish all of these things. I want the evidence that you are basing this claim on....and asking me to show otherwise is absurd, since I am not the one making such claims to begin with.

If you ever produce evidence supporting your position, we can then move forward to me "showing otherwise" or accepting your conclusions.

Look at the cost of per capita health care in countries that do provide universal health care (of any kind, government only, or a combination of both
government and private) and the per capita health care in OUR country!

And tell me that there is anything more to prove!

Yes, there is a ton more to prove. We can start by producing evidence that in the United States, what you are claiming, will actually occur.

 

[dogtowner]

Can you explain the MAJOR difference between a "right to live" and a "right to life?"

the former, in your mind, means free healthcare while the latter refers to it being wrong to take life.

How does the "right to pursue happiness" work. . .when one is dying and not receiving health care?

everyone dies but everyone that has nothing to do with artificially preventing this pursuit.

MY foundation is built on fallacy?

loads of them in fact b ut you are not alone in being so miseducated.

Well, I think YOUR foundation is built on fallacy! What difference does that make? You think I'm wrong, but at least I am at peace with my conscience! I think YOU"RE wrong, and believe it or not, my opinion is as valuable and as worthy as yours!

you assume we are NOT at peace ? no, its not but you are free to have it and speak it. that I will defend. its actually important that you do so please feel free to continue.

 

[Openmind]

the former, in your mind, means free healthcare while the latter refers to it being wrong to take life.

Oh, you're a "mind reader" now? And. . .who EVER talked about FREE health care? I have talked about "affordable" health care, through REAL competion, instead of "price fixing" that (although illegal) exists in the US private, for profit health care industry. And, there is a fine line between "taking a life" and "letting someone lose their life!". . .either way, you would be hard press to your "right to pursue happiness!"

everyone dies but everyone that has nothing to do with artificially preventing this pursuit.

If you are a father, and your child develops cancer, but you are not insured. Do you think you can still "pursue happiness" while watching your child suffer and be refused thorough medical care because of the lack of insurance?

If your child needs an organ transplant, and your insurance refuses to cover it. . .do you think that YOUR and your child's "right to pursue happiness" is not violated?
loads of them in fact b ut you are not alone in being so miseducated.

you assume we are NOT at peace ? no, its not but you are free to have it and speak it. that I will defend. its actually important that you do so please feel free to continue.

IF you are truly at peace with accepting the fact that your neighbor, or your friend, or maybe even your child can fall through the cracks and can be refused health care because they do not have private insurance, you are either devoid of human feelings or you are very good at shutting down your feelings and living in illusions.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking, and it remains unanswered.



Well, my foot is worth more to me. I don't think you will find that this viewpoint is outside the norm.



I didnt ask for generalities, I asked for clear statistical proof that this would be the case in the United States. If you have it, produce it, if not, then I am left to assume your claims are opinion based with no evidentiary support.



You are the one claiming it will accomplish all of these things. I want the evidence that you are basing this claim on....and asking me to show otherwise is absurd, since I am not the one making such claims to begin with.

If you ever produce evidence supporting your position, we can then move forward to me "showing otherwise" or accepting your conclusions.



Yes, there is a ton more to prove. We can start by producing evidence that in the United States, what you are claiming, will actually occur.

Can you prove that universal health care of any sort is more costly than what we currently have?

You can't. . .because it isn't!

You are playing games. It is clear that our health care is MUCH more expensive than any other health care in developped countries. . .for much less health care per capita.

If that is not good enough for you. . .you are just playing games.

But I am certain that, if the question is reversed, you will NOT answer. . .because you can't without SHOWING that OUR FORM OF HEALTH CARE is a lot more expensive than anyone else!

HOW can you prove something if you REFUSE to let it happen?

You do not accept "models" or exemples from other countries. . .so you continue in "business as usual" with insurance getting ever more expensive, and with ever more people NOT being covered!

Now, why don't YOU prove that a different system wouldn't work, wouldn't be less expensive, or at least start controlling the costs?

But, you can't. . .

 

[BigRob]

Can you prove that universal health care of any sort is more costly than what we currently have?

You can't. . .because it isn't!

You are playing games. It is clear that our health care is MUCH more expensive than any other health care in developped countries. . .for much less health care per capita.

If that is not good enough for you. . .you are just playing games.

But I am certain that, if the question is reversed, you will NOT answer. . .because you can't without SHOWING that OUR FORM OF HEALTH CARE is a lot more expensive than anyone else!

HOW can you prove something if you REFUSE to let it happen?

You do not accept "models" or exemples from other countries. . .so you continue in "business as usual" with insurance getting ever more expensive, and with ever more people NOT being covered!

Now, why don't YOU prove that a different system wouldn't work, wouldn't be less expensive, or at least start controlling the costs?

But, you can't. . .

Just to get this straight....you demand we implement a national healthcare system because it will save us money...and then when asked how much or to prove that with statistics, your response is to demand that I prove you wrong? That is not how a real debate works.

As for how you can prove something without allowing it to happen, you do a statistical analysis and include tested economic rules and arrive at your best conclusions. Where is such a study?

Am I really supposed to believe that healthcare will be better now because you told me so? Yea right.

 

[Openmind]

Just to get this straight....you demand we implement a national healthcare system because it will save us money...and then when asked how much or to prove that with statistics, your response is to demand that I prove you wrong? That is not how a real debate works.

As for how you can prove something without allowing it to happen, you do a statistical analysis and include tested economic rules and arrive at your best conclusions. Where is such a study?

Am I really supposed to believe that healthcare will be better now because you told me so? Yea right.

Why don't you just look at "tried and tested" systems of universal health care, and then compare these to ours?


I have done that several time, but either you choose not to answer, or you "poopoo it."

So. . .you think it is smarter to just continue to do the same thing, keep on increasing the cost of health care just the way it is, with more people going uninsured every years, and increasing the burden both on employers and on individuals. . .or is it better to look at systems that DO work?

Am I suppose to believe that OUR system is best because. . . .you tell me so? Yea, right!

 

[BigRob]

Why don't you just look at "tried and tested" systems of universal health care, and then compare these to ours?


I have done that several time, but either you choose not to answer, or you "poopoo it."

So. . .you think it is smarter to just continue to do the same thing, keep on increasing the cost of health care just the way it is, with more people going uninsured every years, and increasing the burden both on employers and on individuals. . .or is it better to look at systems that DO work?

Am I suppose to believe that OUR system is best because. . . .you tell me so? Yea, right!

I have not seen you do it once, but I am not asking for you to say in the UK they pay X...I am looking for an actual study that focuses on the US system and backs up your claims.

I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am saying I simply want to see it.

 

[dogtowner]

Why don't you just look at "tried and tested" systems of universal health care, and then compare these to ours?

I read about them all the time and what they do not do and I saw Canada's kill my friend through rationing. I've never seen "ours" kill someone.

 

[Openmind]

I read about them all the time and what they do not do and I saw Canada's kill my friend through rationing. I've never seen "ours" kill someone.

Really? You don't think we have "rationing?"

What was that thread about "dumping of patients" about than?
And why is there a "cap" to lifelong spending imposed by private industry. . .a cap that Obama care makes illegal?

And what about those (MANY) stories about private health care industry kicking people off their insurance after they developped an expensive to treat condition? And the pre-existing conditions (once again, the Obama care will make those illegal).

 

[Openmind]

I have not seen you do it once, but I am not asking for you to say in the UK they pay X...I am looking for an actual study that focuses on the US system and backs up your claims.

I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am saying I simply want to see it.

Do you realize that private health care industry cost have gone up MUCH faster than medicare and medicaid combined?

Do you realize that about 163 million people in the US are covered by private insurance, while about 50 million people are covered by medicare, but the people covered by medicare/medicaid are MUCH higher need (due to age, or disability) than those covered by private insurance, and still, the cost of covering those is lower than the cost of Private health care?

Why do you think that is?

Here is a very interesting FACTUAL link. But, guess what. . .you're going to have to do your own reading. . .since you don't believe me when I try to summarize anyway!

Single-Payer FAQ | Physicians for a National Health Program www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faqCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
What happens to investor-owned hospitals under national health insurance (NHI) ? ... How much do private insurance companies spend on overhead and profit? .... The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to .... of total health spending, or $4048 per capita (out of total expenditure of $6697) .

 

[dogtowner]

Really? You don't think we have "rationing?"

What was that thread about "dumping of patients" about than?
And why is there a "cap" to lifelong spending imposed by private industry. . .a cap that Obama care makes illegal?

And what about those (MANY) stories about private health care industry kicking people off their insurance after they developped an expensive to treat condition? And the pre-existing conditions (once again, the Obama care will make those illegal).

She was not an institutional sort of the kind you report upon. She needed a cat scan and had to wait 8 months to get one which was enough time for the cancer to become inoperable. You can get a scan here in hours if you need it.

You asked us to compare so i did and I find them sorely lacking.

 

[dogtowner]

Do you realize that private health care industry cost have gone up MUCH faster than medicare and medicaid combined?

What the providers lose on the Medi's they make up elsewhere.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I read about them all the time and what they do not do and I saw Canada's kill my friend through rationing. I've never seen "ours" kill someone.

so your blind, thats not canadas fault.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

She was not an institutional sort of the kind you report upon. She needed a cat scan and had to wait 8 months to get one which was enough time for the cancer to become inoperable. You can get a scan here in hours if you need it.

You asked us to compare so i did and I find them sorely lacking.

unless you don't have coverage...and are not rich....then you don't even get to wait.

also you state a cause and effect with no proof. They have Universal health care, and it took a while...so one must cause the other.

Its cold in Canada...it took 8 months...thus if its cold it takes to long to get a MRI... Or of course it could be that the US has far more medical places to go and get checked...and have nothing to do with how its paid for...Or are you saying because evryone can get one done if needed it takes to long? so how do you fix that..ration it?

Our System Rations every day, just because you fail to see it does not make it not true.