JustinW

iNow,

 

That reference supports my position. Thanks for sharing it. Wait times are longer... for non-time sensitive care. For time sensitive care, they get it done more quickly.

Where does it say this? Here, look again: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

 

 

Phi,

 

But this part that you liked, "Because health care is something we might all need some day in an emergency"? I'm very happy that you and your family enjoy such fantastic health that you only need health insurance for emergencies. I truly hope that no one you love has any health problems, but I want you to know that I'm completely willing to pay a nominal amount in taxes, with the risks spread out among millions of my fellow taxpayers, to make sure that your family, especially your kids, are covered by a single-payer insurance policy that won't deny them when they need it most.

You do such a fabulous job of twisting the context of people's word applications. The part you quoted wasn't the whole of the sentence and is broadly taken out of context. The end of the sentence needs a coma followed by the fact that in an emergency most people call 911 with a cell phone. It's not followed by "people only need healthcare in an emergency".

 

 

And I'm probably like you, I haven't had that much to do with doctors and hospitals in my life, thank goodness.

Well that makes one of us. I could give you a list if you like.

 

 

Does John sound impartial and objective to you?

About as impartial and objective as the WHO. Why don't I dig up some dirt on the members of some of those other organizations. I've got a hunch and I'll get back to you on it.

 

John,

 

They call them pay phones, but they are free for emergency calls.

Try finding one of those around every corner. It's not as easy as it used to be.

 

Anyway, the point of the analogy is what's on the table, not the details of it. The way yall attack analogies it's a wonder you ever let any of them slide. None of them would hold up to the qualifications that yall apply to the ones I post.

 

 

I accept that a 'phone box is not a mobile phone, but my mobile supplier will let me dial emergency numbers even if I have no credit.

As do they all. It was a point, not a situation to be taken literally. Apply the point to any analogical subject you want.

Because we're not just talking of wait times and my damn computer keeps messing up. I've tried to respond about 3 times already and right before I finished every time somehow it would all get erased and I would have to start all over again. Aside from being frustrating as hell I must have lost track of a few things. But let's see if I can get around to providing you with something. Here's two things quoted from wiki which establishes who does the studies.

 

" As reported by the Health Council of Canada, a 2010 Commonwealth survey found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 43% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 10% in the U.S. The same survey states that 37% of Canadians say it is difficult to access care after hours (evenings, weekends or holidays) without going to the emergency department over 34% of Americans. Furthermore, 47% of Canadians, and 50% of Americans who visited emergency departments over the past two years feel that they could have been treated at their normal place of care if they were able to get an appointment. ^[58"

 

^"Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S"

 

 

That last one could hardly be dismissed as right-wing since that is the same group that provided you with those lovely graphs.

Let e ask a serious question here. If wait times were not an issue in NHS countries, then why is it such a big policy issue over there?It seems that people usually don't adress things that aren't problems.

 

 

What you "feel" is moot

Kind of like your moral dilema when it comes to providing each and everyone with healthcare. Is what you "feel" moot, or is that what drives you on this subject?

 

 

as the sources shared already show it to not be a "big reason," and only accounts for 1-2% of the overall reason costs are increasing.

What exactly did your sources suggest as far as prices and who those prices are applying to? Did they refer to the CONSUMER/PRACTITONER cost relation? Or was it refering to 1-2% of the overall costs? My term "big reason" was applying to direct costs from practiToners.

 

 

Your choice not to buy a cell phone does not have a proximal impact on the cost to the rest of us.

So you're saying the people that CHOOSE not to buy healthcare have a proximal impact on the cost of healthcare, and you're using this as the reason that costs are so high?

 

The cell phone company is not legally required to provide you with a cell phone if you encounter an emergency.

Not yet. If the number of emergencies that were not responded to in time were to show that it was a lack of cell phone ownership. And this number looked worse than another country that provided their people with cell phones, would you be in support of our government mandating that we buy cell phones? It seems that if you follow your own moral imperative,that you would for the sake of those who suffer.

 

As was described to the justices when this argument was raised, the comparison fails due to the nature of healthcare and healthcare coverage.

It might fail in comparison to healthcare and what a practitioner is obligated to do, but it does not fail when compared to coverage.

I think, after catching up on the incident, that there are some misconceptions here. From what I understand there was a couple of eye witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, the ambulance treated zimmerman for superficial wounds on the scene, and people are creating scenarios based on suppositions and assumptions. The police treat people a certain way due to what they find at the scene. If the situation looked to be what Zimmerman stated it was, then why would the police treat it differently? Not to mention these witnesses must have coroborated the state of the situation or else the police would have acted differently in my view.

 

What I don't get is why people automatically make these types of situations race related. They do so before they even know the facts. I don't know all of the facts but only have my feeling of the situation by relating the attitude of those who took control of the scene with the little I do know. Which in no way insinuated a hate crime. Racial profiling maybe. But then there is more I could say about that which might get misconstrude. The fact of the matter is that this guy has already been found guilty by activist groups everywhere. Why? Just because the victim was black and the perp was white? It doesn't make sense when considering the actions of those at the scene.

iNow,

 

Are you suggesting this is a valid comparison? You seem to be asserting that "providing universal healthcare to our citizens as a right... and not merely as a privilege for the wealthy... in a manner that aligns with the entire rest of the civilized world" is equivalent to having a "kid play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV." If you see those issues as the same, I fear you're position may be immune to logic and reason. They are not, for many reasons.

 

Also, you are misrepresenting the argument. Nobody is here saying the only reason we should provide coverage to all citizens is because other countries do it. The point is that other countries DO provide it as a right and your personal stance appears like something out of the dark ages. We as a country are way behind the curve on this, and worse still we're paying twice as much as any other nation for lower quality care as measured by essentially every relevant health related metric... and despite that extra cost... despite that lower quality care... we STILL completely fail to cover a rather significant portion of our population.

 

I think you know what I was getting at. And no, I don't think I was misrepresenting the argument. You can't expect every point that I try to make to encompass the whole of the argument.

 

 

Further, if there weren't numerous other respected sources already provided in this thread that arrived at conclusions polar opposite to the argument you've been making, then perhaps your source may have seemed more acceptable to us. When it comes to the weight of the evidence (even just that small bit provided here in this thread), it disagrees with the central premise of your argument... and in response you have chosen to cite a single source itself known for consistent bias and lack of trustworthiness... So when their conclusions disagree with the 5 or 7 sources the opposing side this discussion has already offered... yes, you'll generally be dismissed as not serious or your argument deemed unsupported and without merit.

Most of which I have provided contradictory reasons and reports. Like this one, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 , is this not peer reviewed? Is the National Center for Policy Analysis a co-conspirator with the right-wing propoganda machine? The fact of the matter is that I can provide just as many reports that oppose as you can those that support.

 

And as Phi and I both already countered, the risk of litigation accounts for only 1-2% of our overall healthcare cost increases. Even if I'm EXTREMELY generous and concede that there are other indirect costs that bring that number up to 5%, that means that there are still other factors causing 95% of the growth in healthcare costs. Why you'd focus on one of the smallest contributors to cost is beyond me, not to mention that it's completely off-topic from the central discussion of private versus public coverage.

This is why I haven't argued it too much. Though I believe this is a big reason prices between providers and consumers are up, I just mentioned that it was a valid point. And yes I think it does fit into the discussion due to the fact that this will transform the insurance industry. I have a feeling there will be a lot of people that will be looking for a job if they allow this to proceed.

 

The reform already DID pass. It is a law. It is in effect. We'll learn more after this week if it will remain a law, but it is one right now, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.

Yes I didn't phrase that right. And it isn't looking good for your side so far is it?

 

 

Phi,

As iNow points out, this analogy is beyond flawed. The success enjoyed by other countries with national healthcare systems is not a fictional entertainment, it's a well-documented fact. And the point is not to "set our standards by the rest of the world", the point is that when you're having trouble with something, it's wise to look to others who've been successful and learn from them, see what they're doing right and adapt it to your own situation. We aren't too proud to admit we can learn from foreigners, are we?

Alright let's use a different one. I'll use someone elses so it's not so "off the cuff".

 

This is what was said in the supreme court yesterday. " Because health care is something we might all need some day in an emergency. A cell phone is also something we might need some day in an emergency. If the government can force us to buy insurance we might need some day to address an emergency that hasn't happened yet, it stands to reason they could force us to buy the cell phone we will need to call 911 to get the emergency response." I would half way agree that this analogy, but I would change it up a little bit to better fit the situation. I would have said that the government should PROVIDE you with a cell phone, MANDATE that the people buy the phone service, and TAX you either for sales tax on the service or as a penalty for those who decide to opt out.

 

 

John,

More generally, it's because you should adopt the best standards and (in spite of your determined refusal to accept this) there is evidence that government owned healthcare is the best.

To be blunt, you should do it because you recognise that it is folly to pay twice as much for a system that produces more dead babies.

Maybe you should take a look at the percentage numbers of the last link I have provided. Oh I forgot, it's probably to right-wing to pay attention to.

 

Also, don't forget that the countries with national healthcare systems decided to set them up and they decided to keep them.

I can't bring to mind any country that decided to abandon the system because it didn't work.

Is this why your always whinning about those governments trying to privatize portions of it? It seems that at least some want to change it by your own admissions.

 

 

Just a quick reminder to the citizens of the US: from point of view of about 95% of the world's population, you are foreigners.

And most of us are damn proud of it.

I must have missed it. What were the circumstances around the shooting? And what was this vigilante being vigilant about?

John,

 

Well most of the Western world for a start.

And why should we set our standards by the rest of the world's? That's kind of like a kid trying to play with a gun because he saw someone do it on TV don't you think?

 

 

But, as you say that's another topic. Perhaps we should drop it.

Or start a new one, but I highly doubt you would like what I have to say on the matter. It would be another subject where I lack any empathy, sympathy, or any feeling even coming close to good will.

 

 

"Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word."

Way to win an argument! swear and ignore the fact that, actually people do suffer.

Your saying "Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?" is a straw man since nobody is advocating that.

If you can't win the argument without ignoring the facts, swearing and resorting to logical fallacy you oughtn't start to argue.

A little sarcasm never hurt. Strawman? Like when you said this

Justin, you don't understand freedom at all. I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are.

and this

Just like a fire brigade, ambulances, honest cops and an uncorrupted judiciary, these are the benefits of living in a civilised nation. We all pay a little bit in our taxes for the Firies, but very few of us will need them to put out a house fire. Why shouldn't avoiding house fires be "individual responsibility" as well?

 

As odd as it may seem on a science website, I don't want you to find a few more anecdotes, I want you to accept that significance of a properly produced report like the on cited.

Which one?

 

iNow,

 

U.S.A!! U.S.A!! U.S.A!! Perhaps you want to cite the Onion News Network or Dora the Explorer as your next source?

What exactly qualifies as a good source for you gentlemen? The ones that agree with your point of view and support your agenda? If I recall John just said " The daily mail and the telegraph are noted for their right wing bias so it's entirely possible they do make stuff up."

 

So that just tells me, if it could possibly be right wing, you dismiss it automatically. I have purposely been trying to avoid right-wing studies for that reason. Was I wrong to do so?

 

Also please refrain from speaking ill of Dora, she's teaching me spanish at the moment.

 

 

doG,

 

Why do you think the discussion is ONLY about private insurer versus coverage being offered through a public single payer system? The OP didn't raise that issue at all. From the OP it looks like this thread is about health care cost and quality in the U.S.? Did I miss something there?

I don't think you missed a thing and are actually making a very valid point as to why costs are so high. Like I've told John before, this is something that could be fixed. But I think he just wants me to buy a new one.

 

iNow,

 

That's fine. I was simply part of the conversation that prompted this thread, and also the last four pages here were on... well... the discussion certainly centered around a completely different aspect of this topic. I was genuinely curious, and appreciate your clarification.

It's all good. I feel that all angles really apply with this topic since most angles will change if this reform is allowed to pass.

iNow,

 

They can determine with which healthcare providers they will contract to offer services to employees, but they cannot decide what those providers offer to the insured. Those providers must follow the law and adhere to the regulations for their industry. Those regulations have been updated to include preventative medicine for females. The employer is welcome to drop all coverage offerings, but not to pick and choose a la carte which benefits the benefit provider will cover under the law.

Hence the words NEW LAW.

zapatos,

And it is this attitude I fear that will continue to hold this country back.

Back from what? A socialists agenda? A greater utopian society where we're just one big happy family? Where it's no longer politically correct to want what's yours because someone else doesn't have it or wants it for free?

 

 

When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society.

Now that's just ignorant. Is it your right to survive? No. It's your right to do what YOU can to survive. If that means bearing arms against an enemy who wishes to harm you, then so be it. If it is to WORK to gain the means to provide for your future health, then so be it. But it is not your right to make others pay to ensure your own future health OR safety.

 

 

John,

 

And, once that place learns the falsehood of that statement it will be a better place.

By who's standards? Those who wish to change it for their own sense of fairness? Those who wish to make it like their own?

 

If you can get rid of capital punishment too, you will be well on the way to civilisation.

That way no one's ever justly punnished. I think this could be a whole new topic.

 

It seem s that you are happy to pay twice as much for healthcare just to maintain a system that makes sure that some people, who can't afford it, suffer.

Yeah, people are suffering all around me. That's the reason I have to type instead of talk, due to all the moans of bitter dispair I can't hear a f***in' word.

 

 

iNow,

 

You continue to operate using a myth as the foundation of your central premise.

Myth? I guess people just make this crap up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490987/NHS-waiting-times-longest-compared-western-nations.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8825165/48-rise-in-patients-waiting-too-long-for-NHS-treatment.html

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/health/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158895035

 

Touching sob story by the way. Do you want me to pull up those I've heard from NHS nations?

zapatos,

 

I can only hope that you are not responsible for the welfare of anyone.

Actually those of whom I provide for do quite well thank you.

 

 

You either have no concept of what goes on in the real world or completely lack empathy. I cannot think of what else could lead to these kinds of comments.

It must be hard to carry the worlds burdens on your shoulders. I live in a world where nothing's free and everything's earned. A place where we still understand that healthcare is a privilege not a right. I heard, just this morning, the same comparison made between healthcare and driving. Driving is still a privilege, yet look at the necessity of it.

 

 

Some people, through no fault of their own, are not capable of providing for themselves. Emotional problems, mental problems, social problems, physical problems, abuse by parents/spouses/siblings, environment, old age, young age, dementia, Asperger's, divorce, cancer, and just plain bad luck can all lead to people not "living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves".

And we have programs for those people. What's your point?

 

I can only hope you do not run your family this way. "She's 18, if she cannot find a job in this economy to pay for dental insurance, that is not my problem. Let her suffer the consequences and bear the pain of that cavity. Sorry if I sound harsh."

 

I'm sorry but this isn't even close to being related to what I've said. 18 or not she would still be my child and if I could help I would. But that doesn't mean I have help every body else. They're not my responsibility like my children are. And in the process of helping my own child I would hope to pass on the lesson of preparing herself for the future and working hard to insure that she is. Tell me what's so wrong with that.

 

I don't expect a lot out my country, but I do expect the basics, such as fighting for me when I need protection

I think you have missed the point of government somewhere along the way. WE fight for ourselves and our families.

 

eliminating barriers to my ability to fend for myself

Do you mean GIVING you a way around those barriers? It seems to me we used to WORK through those barriers.

 

 

and helping me when I cannot care for myself.

That which your family should provide if you have so conveniently failed to do so yourself.

 

 

I suspect that you never complain about the government providing roads for you to drive on, police to protect you, the military to guard your borders, firemen to protect your house, or any of the other services that they provide, that happen to be of use to you.

We already provide it. What's so hard to understand about that? We have programs for the indigent already. They may not get the same level of care but why do you feel that they have to.

 

 

But as soon as it is something that you personally don't need, then it is every man for himself.

You don't know anything about me.

 

 

When you start advocating everyone taking on the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY of providing for their own personal protection in place of a police force, then I'll get on board with you for everyone providing their own health care.

A gun makes everybody equal mister.

 

 

Phi,

I think you're letting one aspect of our system blind you to all the good it does. For every lazy slob on the dole their are many people who truly need the help that only a national risk pool can accomplish.

Like who? Who doesn't recieve treatment through no fault of their own?

 

Notice how our wars give us more enemies

I didn't know the point of war was to make friends. We better pay more attention to that in the future.

 

 

our lack of healthcare benefits gives us more indigent people sitting in the ERs?

This is my point. First it's lack of care, then people argue that those same people are getting cared for, it's just costing too much. Let's cover all of them that way it'll cost less. That really makes sense.

 

 

Oh, but that's the absolute MOST inefficient way to care for people! It costs taxpayers in the US in more ways than just money to support an emergency-only type of healthcare.

Okay...let's foot the bill for all Americans. Then we can pay for their doctor bills plus emergency room visits. Because you know that most of the people that use the ER these days would prefer the waiting lists that I hear are racking up for the NHS for regular doctors visits. Our own waiting lists aren't that great, do you think a NHS will make them better or worse?

If insurance was part of your employment contract, your employer would be in breach if he tried to drop it. If your contract was up for renewal, and your employer tried to remove it, wouldn't you negotiate for more wages to cover the costs?

 

And how many people hire on under an employment contract? It doesn't apply the way you're trying to argue it. If we are talking about employment contracts then I would agree with you, but we're not. We are talking about regular everyday employment benifits.

 

 

What is it about the major US employers that makes you think they're so generous as to give such an expensive "gift" to all their employees?

The incentives they recieve for doing so. What else? I'm not saying they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, even though I would say that an employer may be glad that they can do so.

 

iNow,

 

Glad to. It was in the post to which I was responding:

 

Ah touche, I stand corrected. I think why I didn't recall saying it was because I was thinking of it in a different context. I think I was referring to it as a way to increase competition in the job market from an employers prospective. Rather than deciding to up and quit due to benifit provisions. But yet I concede to your point.

 

 

Apparently, neither do facts, economics, enhancements in efficiency, reductions in cost, and the enabling of freedom to the greatest number.

Again you're in the wrong thread. We're not talking about overall healthcare, we're talking about what decisions an employer can make about the insurance they provide for their employees.

iNow,

 

Why should access to healthcare to any human beings experiencing a time of need, when they are ill, or suffer some sort of accident be so directly tied to their ability to be employed by a high-end quality employer with a good benefits package? Are the lesser educated members of our society less worthy of receiving quality care? Are the unfortunate who have been laid off through no fault of their own no longer worthy of having access to medicine and doctors without bankrupting themselves?

Your moral imperative really doesn't move me all that much. I think you need to read back in the thread to understand what we are talking about. Or you can transition this comment onto the other thread where it's more relevant.

 

 

You mention how people can just "switch jobs if they don't like their medical coverage,"

When did I say this? I will have to admit, it sounds pretty easy when I say it though doesn't it? You're going to have to refresh my memory here, I've looked back several pages and couldn't find where I've said this.

 

If I work at Burger King to pay my bills and put food on the table for my kids, am I somehow less worthy of healthcare than the single guy who works in a major corporation? You honestly believe that the BK employee can simply say, "Yep, I've had about enough of this. I think I will start working at IBM tomorrow?" Come on, man. You have to reconnect your arguments to reality and be more practical than that. The only way this works is to provide healthcare for every citizen regardless of class or life position or "luck of the draw," and the amazing thing is that doing so actually brings down the per person costs for all of us.

 

Are you sure you're in the right thread? Maybe you meant to post on the other one. I don't know where this fits in with an employer deciding what coverage to provide.

 

 

 

Swansont and Phi,

 

Employers provide health insurance rather than the cash equivalent because it's a tax break for both the employer and employee

This is really where I need to remember my Babel Fish. If an employer were to drop an employees health insurance would they be required to pay that employee the equivalent of the money they were paying in for that insurance? If not I don't see how you can consider it the employees money. That is my point and maybe I haven't been saying it right.

John,

 

Justin, you don't understand freedom at all. I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are. Nobody would leave as they are trapped by healthcare costs. In contrast in Australia I have to be polite and work with my employees, by having access to universal healthcare my people can tell me where to go and when without fear. Australians are free to choose who to work for, Americans are not. Any way you slice it we have freedoms that you don't.

That's a bunch of crap. While healthcare benifits are an incentive to choose a certain employment, they are in no way turning people into SLAVES. If someone is too chicken s**t to find a new job out of fear of not having healthcare, then they know nothing about the access to healthcare in the US. Do you people think we are just letting people die in the streets? First people argue that because we can walk in off the streets and get medical attention that it's costing the taxpayer too much. The they turn right around and say people are dying right and left from the lack of access. I wish they would make up their minds.

 

 

As to the whole "individual responsibility" argument, what a joke. Civilised nations view Universal Healthcare as a given. Just like a fire brigade, ambulances, honest cops and an uncorrupted judiciary, these are the benefits of living in a civilised nation. We all pay a little bit in our taxes for the Firies, but very few of us will need them to put out a house fire. Why shouldn't avoiding house fires be "individual responsibility" as well?

It's not a joke. There are some of us out there who don't like to help someone who won't help themselves. I agree with Phi on one thing he has said in the past, "that no one want's to see a single mother with two children, who happens to have fallen on hard times do without", but I frankly don't give a damn about the lazy SOB that wont get of his arse to get a job. You know...those who want something for nothing, those who feel the world owes them something just because they're here.

 

 

 

Religion we discuss a few forums up, around here facts and data win.

Facts and data huh? Like when you say things like this?

I'd love to be an employer in the US. So long as there was a good health plan I could treat my workers like the slaves they are.

 

 

 

Anybody arguing that a developed nation should not have some form of universal coverage should also be arguing against police, highways, firies and ambos on the same basis.

Everything listed here besides highways are put to use in matters of emergency. We also have healthcare for that. It's called an "emergency room". And at least we are not waiting outside in an ambulance so we can keep up with the waiting time quotas. http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSS&docid=212666359

doG,

 

You've made a good point. One that I've failed to mention, but haven't overlooked completely. I know tort reform had a big impact here in Texas.

 

John,

 

You mean the one where the US pays roughly twice as much for healthcare but doesn't get a better service?

That's the biggest dead horse here.

The numbers show it to be true.

 

Even the web page you cited agrees that things like infant mortality (with all it's problems) and under 5 year mortality (which addresses those problems to some extent) are widely used and broadly accepted by, for example the WHO as measures of "fitness for purpose".

Yes and I've also cited reasons that they are wrong to compare systems using those numbers. Not to mention that the WHO have been labeled as biased due to the fact that their studies give bad marks for countries that have fee-paying treatment and rate countries by comparison with THEIR EXPECTED performance rather than objectively comparing quality of care.

 

There's no question that the US pays more.

You seem to accept it when you say "So? We also make more money. Generally speaking the more you make the more you spend.".

Which is true enough, but an odd point of view.

Sure I accept the fact that we could do a lot to cut down on spending. A good way to start is with tort reform such as doG brought up above. I never thought that spending shouldn't be adressed. It's just in the way that we are thinking about adressing it that I have a problem with.

 

 

If you want to buy some bread, do you look round to see what shop will offer it to you for the highest price?

No, but I buy a better quality.

 

Remember, we are not talking about paying a premium for a better product like getting nicer bread or having it delivered, it's a worse product that you buy- yet you seem happy to pay more for it.

Sure we are.

 

So we can look forward to healthcare being added to this list http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/full_list/ or do you think they'll suddenly get better at what they do?

iNow,

 

I'm pretty sure I explained this earlier. Your freedom "not to be insured" is actually no such thing. What it really is best described as is "your freedom to mooch off the rest of us." Yes, that is a freedom I am quite happy to restrict.

And this really only applies to those who aren't living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves. The same people that will get the benifit from such a healthcare system.

 

 

We ALL need access to healthcare at some point in our lives.

And when did THAT stop being an individual responsibility?

 

As if a) people have perfect access to information on what to choose, b) people know precisely when or how much care they will need, and c) people can choose not to need healthcare. It's ludicrous on its face, and yet it serves as the foundation for your entire argument.

My arguement on this point is ,yes, it is a persons individual responsibility to provide this for themselves. Since when did we have to treat the majority of our population like children? If someone doesn't take responsibility for themselves, let them suffer the consequences. That may seem harsh, but I don't believe in pampering a grown adult. And I don't believe my government should mandate that I provide for them. Us middle class Americans have a hard enough job of providing for our own as it is.

 

Further, as I stated above, I'm talking about healthcare specifically, not "how far the government should go to protect us from ourselves." That is so far beyond the scope of this discussion that it is little more than a red herring. It's as if I said, "I'm trying to decide between a Toyota and a Nissan," and you then try to hijack the conversation into "let's talk about whether or not ground transportation or rail should be the best method of goods shipment."

 

Since the arguement is getting the government involved in doing just that, "protecting us from ourselves" or "doing this for our own good", I believe it is relevant to the specifics of the subject.

 

 

Also, FWIW... I never claimed Medicare was perfect, so your criticisms miss the mark a bit. I simply claimed that it's better than private insurance across many different domains and metrics, not the least of which is cost control and availability of coverage to large swaths of people.

And my point is that it's so good, you still have to include a PRIVATE insurance to get the coverage you need. Goes to show how much "better" it is.

 

Phi,

 

People used to be responsible for providing the overland route to travel by car from coast to coast. Just over the past half a century it was decided that we could pool national taxes and build the Interstate Highway System, shortening the time and expense for EVERYONE who travels. The measure passed because Americans felt they deserved it, it was much more efficient and it saved resources, not that they were entitled to it.

Efficiency and quality of a universal system is still one of the fundamental debating topics of the arguement. Not to mention that the government doesn't mandate that you use the highway system or how you use the highway system(barring certain circumstances). It's not like their taking away the option not to drive, or the option to drive on smaller streets. So the analogy doesn't quite fit.

iNow,

 

Interesting questions to ponder, but frankly irrelevant in this context.

I think the question is completely relevant to the context of the conversation. People used to be responsible for providing the means to pay for their family's as well as their own healthcare. Just over the past century it has become a matter for someone else to provide it. Just something else that some feel they're entitled to.

 

 

They already do. It's called Medicare, the elderly love it, and it's actually cheaper than private insurance (it's managed to keep the growth of costs lower).

Which has problems of it's own, not to mention that seniors have to have private insurance just to get the coverage they need.

http://www.seniorcor...-with-medicare/

 

 

It's not an "argument" when one side ignores all the data, argues from a purely ideological position, and prioritizes "what I feel in my gut" over what the facts say.

It's great that someone can call it facts when information can be provided that dispute the reasoning and integrity of the so called "facts" that have been provided. I have never claimed that any information that I have provided are FACTS, because I know that anything can, and probably will, be disputed. Someone provides numbers, and if I can list the reasons that those numbers are inaccurate or at least cannot be a basis for arguement, then that is why I would disagree about them being FACTS.

 

Since you seem to have missed my point, let me elaborate. In aggregate, the overall freedom in our country will increase if more people have healthcare access. Right now, millions and millions of people lack access to care and their freedom is hence quite limited and restricted.

Are you talking about people's mobility? The freedom to move around? Or the freedom to enjoy other aspects of life without having to burden themselves with responsibilty to provide for themselves?

 

Overall, by providing them with care we increase the overall "collective" freedom in our country, even if a small handful of people are upset because they no longer get to choose whether they are covered under BlueCross, Aetna, or not covered at all.

I think you nailed it with what I have bolded in your statement. So we are trading freedom for security? And that's okay? How far will we let a government go to protect us from ourselves? It seems that I have picked the proper signature for the times huh? And yes this arguement is as much ideological as it is a factual one. People can have opinions that combine the two, and there is no reason they shouldn't.

 

John,

 

Justin, stop calling me a liar.

No matter what someone else said, I told you quite clearly what I think and why.

Okay that is the reason you posted the links. So? I quite clearly told you why I think you were wrong in using that information as a basis for your arguements. You said you listed that information because YOU THOUGHT it was indisputable. I then gave reasons as to why it WAS disputable for arguing the matter of healthcare quality.

Okay you thought it was indisputable fact, ( however it's NOT in the context of the arguement).

I retract my statement about not believing your reasons for posting it. Good enough?

 

Now, for Pete's sake, let's quit beating a dead horse and move on.

Phi,

 

I guess I'm just not saying it correctly. I'm at a complete loss as to why an educated guy like yourself can't see his health insurance as part of his pay.

I understand what you're saying, and from an accounting standpoint it would be that cut and dry. But from a workers prospective those are just benifits that are dictated at the will of an employer. Sure the employee would be pissed if they were automatically dropped, but what could they do about it from a legal standpoint? Nothing.

 

 

Your boss could legally take some of your wages away too, it's not illegal.

This really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The way you're speaking of health insurance as being part of your wage is not the same as reducing your pay if they dropped it, which is illegal in Texas without expressed written permission from the employee. An employer cannot take wages away unless it fits a certain criteria for doing so.

 

 

It's still the employee's money the employer is messing with, and it's up to the employee to either stay or leave and find a job with better compensation.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Phi. I think we were talking about the same thing, just in two different ways. You see this compensation as something that should be decided by the employee, while I see this compensation as what it is. "Dictated by the employer." If an employee doesn't like their benifits then they can always find a better place of employment. But to see this compensation as a part of your wage is strictly an accounting viewpoint.

 

 

If an employer takes too much pay from you, you can file for unemployment even though you quit the job. In essence, you can show the Dept of Unemployment that your employer forced you to quit by reducing the compensation past an acceptable level, and that's the same as firing you (I think that percentage may vary by state).

This statement here I don't hear too much about. It must be different elsewhere because here it is illegal to take a persons wages without just cause. And those causes usually have something to do with government.

 

Employers HAVE to call health insurance a benefit so it doesn't get taxed like wages.

And if it did get taxed like wages, do you think there would be as many employers providing it? It is ther choice, and the incentive is there for them to provide it. Well...it is for now anyway.

iNow,

 

I think even one pregnant woman without access to healthcare is one too many. I think the same logic should apply to all people, even those not carrying a child. Healthcare in my mind is a moral imperative, not a privilege for the rich and well-to-do.

And when do people's responsibility for their own lives come into play? How far are to go to insure that people have no responsibility for their own well being?

 

Treating it as a business necessitates inefficiencies.

Like government bureaucracies doesn't? Let's provide a new arena so now they get to play politics with our healthcare at an even scarier level than they do already. Doesn't sound that morally acceptable to me.

 

Companies must make money and increase shareholder value. That is their modus operandi. They make their money by raising premiums and decreasing paid claims.

And we have put a policy into effect that gives them no choice. That is until every employer dumps their employees into the government plan because it will now cost them less to do so. It's a nice setup if you ask me. Once the majority of Americans have been dumped into the government plan, there will no longer be any excuse not to fully turn it over to government.

 

We often get sick through no fault of our own, and I am frankly disgusted by having to have these same arguments with people over and over again.

I would get used to it if I were you. Any time there is something to argue about, you can bet someone like me will come along and argue about it.

 

The collective freedom of our people will be enhanced by covering them with universal care, not restricted.

Collective freedom huh?

 

 

John,

 

I see you have realised that "The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure."

(That's a quote from one of the pages you cite.)

 

Do you accept that this is the reason why I chose it?

I presume you don't plan to argue against your own evidence so, there's no doubt that a poor inant mortality rate makes the US look bad

No, I said that iNow might have a point "IF" we can assume the numbers are accurate. I still believe that the reasons I gave play just as much of a role in infant mortality as do the reasons that iNow gave.

 

 

Perhaps it's better to look at the source the refer to

" A good source for the most recent IMRs as well as under 5 mortality rates (U5MR) is the UNICEF publication 'The State of the World's Children"

With a little digging around you will find that the US still does badly compared to Europe on under-5 mortallity rates here

http://www.unicef.or.../statistics.php

 

And does this source give you the reporting criteria? I couldn't find it.

 

The USA still comes out as doing badly and they still spend more money on healthcare.

So? We also make more money. Generally speaking the more you make the more you spend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income

 

 

OK, no problem.

You said it yourself.

To be specific, you said "low birth-weight infants have had a growing chance of survival, due to growing medical advancement. "

Now it's obvious that premature infants have low birth weights and you accept that progress in medicine is improving their chances- but their chances are measured not just wrt how thing used to be but also compared to babies whose birth weight isn't low.

Do you normally take people's words out of context to support your arguments? I said that refering to new technology and new procedures that give at-risk pregnancies more of a chance to survive.

 

 

They also rather miss the point of their own graph.

As they say "Our next chart takes our first chart showing the 2005 OECD Nations' Health Care Expenditures per Capita vs GDP (PPP) per Capita, and simply adds some fifty data points for the individual U.S. states "

And, if you look, practically every state in the US is above the line through the rest of the data.

Now their claim was that because the US is very big, it isn't fair to compare it against the smaller countries.

That's not a valid argument anyway, but if you swallow it you still find that each state in the US- just like the US as a whole, spends a disproportionate amount on healthcare.

Plotting each state is an invalid experiment because they are all strongly related to one another- they all have the same federal laws and government for example. So, in effect it's like putting the USA on the chart lots of times and then saying that a line through the states' point goes through the most points. It's true but it's deceitful.

The state indications over the first graph were amounts of GDP (PPP) on average, NOT health expendatures per GDP.

 

trust me- you can't trust it.

 

I usually don't.

 

It is founded on the basis that, as you pointed out the US certainly has the medical knowledge to offer better treatment to many of it's citizens.

Are you saying that we don't? To say that a doctor doesn't do everything technologically possible for his patient needs a little more backing than just saying it.

 

You said that medical advances enable fewer women to have premature babies and that premature babies are more likely to die.Since women without healthcare don't get to take advantage of those advances, more of them lose their babies.

 

That's not what I said. I said that medical avances allow more at-risk pregnancies come to be born for hopes in a saving of it's life. It seems that you're twisting my words around to look like they have different meanings.

 

john5746,

 

The facts seem to be really irritating you, sorry it bugs you so.

I don't think we were talking about FACTS. It was an assumption that the numbers were true, in which I also stated that I had a feeling that something was missing.

 

Even if the US adopted the best system, we still wouldn't have top tier results. I think we would have to improve income and educational disparities to really get near the top.

Let's let the government dictate that too. Yeah

Phi,

 

Exactly! The employee gets a better rate on health insurance due to the group coverage, and the employer doesn't have to pay wage taxes on the non-monetary compensation. It works for both sides, but it is NOT a gift. Employers offer competitive compensation to get the best workers. Workers need to stop seeing themselves as charity cases who should be grateful to have a boss who "gives" them health insurance. We work for that coverage as much as we work for the wages.

Then why is that something that they can take away without compensating you for the loss of it? Where if we talk about wages, an employer cannot just deduct from your wages. That would be illegal. So classifying benifits as monetary sums that you work for isn't the same. They CHOOSE to give you these benifits. Whether it is in their best interests to give these benifits is irrelevant. They might do it for tax reasons or to get a more competitive corner on the employment market, but all of that doesn't matter when it comes to what they provide and if they can take it away AT THEIR CHOOSING. They are not legally bound to give you that kind of compensation and if they take it from you, they are not legally bound to recompensate you to make up for it. So my origional arguement stands, that they pay for it, they can dictate whether you get it or not, other than an employees WANTS, who is to say what part of that coverage they pay for?

 

zapatos,

 

Not one of your links mentioned one word about religious based institutions or contraception.

 

The groundskeepers get angry when you move the goalposts...

 

Sorry, didn't mean to move the goal posts. I just wanted to give a reason why this argument didn't mean much anyway.

I'd be lying if I said you didn't have a point, if we DID assume these numbers were correct, but I have a feeling we're missing something here though I'm not quite sure what it is yet.

 

The fact of the matter is that we do spend a lot on healthcare. Can we figure out how to spend less while remaining at the forefront of innovation and quality? I think we can.

 

Can we figure a way to make coverage more accessible to those who fall into the gap of too much/not enough income? I think we can.

 

BUT, I don't feel that it's necessary to copy a fundamentaly different system, that has it's own flaws, in order to do so. I also don't feel that we need to put policies in place that will make our problems worse in order to establish a reason for making this change. And I above all don't feel that this issue should be turned over to bureaucracies that have hardly ever had good track records at anything else they do. From that, we can only expect quality and efficiency to go down, especially because the older it gets the more it becomes a self preservation of the organization rather than a means to provide a service. But you may have some differing thoughts on the matter.

Does that study refer only to private health care or is medicaid included? Because if it's not, and I saw nothing that indicated it was, this can more than make up for it. http://statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=222&cat=4

Bilko,

 

Let's hope not. Like I said arguement for arguement sake.

 

 

Just for you Justin

 

 

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

That damn Orwell. Always sees right through me.

 

Moontanman,

 

Do you think someone has the right to make you conform to their religious beliefs just because you work for them?

Do you think someone has the right to make their employer conform to their's just because they want them to pay for something they're not willing to pay for themselves?

 

Who is doing that?

 

If an employer is providing employees with a benifit, shouldn't they get to decide what that benifit is? I know this sort of thinking went out the door with union labor, but let's talk privately owned companies.

 

 

You should not comment if you do not have a dog in the hunt but I am sure you do...

No, I pay full price for my wifes contraception. She takes it religiously. (no pun intended) Like I said, the convo seemed a little one sided. I thought I would try and bring the other point of view to light.

 

 

Hitler was a Roman Catholic creationist, he was religiously motivated to protect the Aryan race from the Jews...

He was raised by Catholic parents, but no where does it say his motivations were religious.

 

 

Just another example of the hypocritical nature of religion...

I said "so?", because I didn't see your point. Explain better if you want a more robust answer.

 

 

Phi,

 

"It's not like they are compensating you for anything." You HAVE to be joking! Good lord man, haven't you ever had an employer quote you what your total compensation is, with benefits? In my experience, they love to throw that number around.

 

You are fast gaining a reputation for NOT looking at the evidence people provide to support their arguments. As was stated in the article I cited earlier, even fringe benefits are part of your pay, also called your compensation package. It's paid by the employer, sure, for the work that you do for them. If you're giving control of what you do with your compensation over to your employer, then why can't they tell you what you do with your money? With your bonuses? With your pension plan? Your medical insurance is part of your pay, so why should your employer get to dictate how you use it?

Yeah they may explain it that way, but...they already have control over that part of your "compensation". They can change policy, price, and even drop the damn thing if they chose to. They can take your bonus, why not your contraception. So you're ultimately saying that any employer that wants to opt out of contraception should just drop the whole damn plan instead of adjust to provide without contraception? Now that's rather extreme.

 

And what evidence have I ignored? I'd hate to be on a fast track. Boy, do I feel sheepish. You keep claiming that insurance is like your money that your employer has no say over. When that is not the case at all. It seems that we have two different definitions of compensation.

 

Your employer basically pays you a total compensation of X. If X is strictly wages, then taxes must be paid on X by both you and your employer. However, if your employer pays you X - the cost of medical insurance but provides you with medical insurance, your compensation stays the same but your employer doesn't pay wage taxes on the insurance as well as writes it off on his business taxes. This is why many employers choose to do this, but it's still your compensation and it's not theirs to decide how you use it. Does that make more sense?

Now that makes a little more sense, although I would have to say that they still pay for it. It may not seem fair, but it is what it is.

 

If they try to do this, a mass protest from workers who know better will sweep the country demanding the compensation be increased in wages. If they're going to try to take back a big chunk without making it up to you, are you telling me you'll meekly accept that?

In todays economy would we have a choice? Some had no choice but to drop their employee's coverage during the peak of the recession. So it can be done. Protest is a different matter. As you can see they hardly get the job done.

 

Again, it's none of their business what you do with your health insurance. It was your compensation that paid for it, they should be grateful you all accepted the insurance instead of more pay, thus giving the employer a bonus tax deferment.

Who ever offered more pay instead? I don't remember any.

 

It occurs to me that this might be a subtle ploy to reduce employee compensation across the board. If it can be tested with religious institutions, that sets a precedent for major employers to suddenly support pulling out of health insurance as a benefit.

It's gotta be one of those pesky corporate conspiracies.

 

zapatos,

How long do you think a Catholic hospital will be in business if they suddenly drop health insurance for all of their nurses? What would happen en masse is the nurses heading for the door.

Sorry to turn this into a political conspiracy, but http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/08/huge-number-of-businesses-to-drop-health-insurance-thanks-to-obamacare/

 

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Obamacare-Small-Businesses-Drop/2011/07/26/id/404838

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/033662_Obamacare_health_coverage.html

 

http://www.bluewavenews.com/2011/06/study-that-claims-businesses-will-drop.html

 

Probably won't happen...

 

Just sayin'.

Computer's been down, took me a couple of days to respond.

John,

 

Now, do you actually have any evidence for that?

Scroll down to "comparing infant mortality ratings" http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Infant+mortality+rate

And this one http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/prematurebirths.aspx helps to explain why we have a higher preterm birth rate.

 

 

Any baby born prematurely will be counted among the live births. If itsoon dies it is counted towards infant mortality.

Again it is more than likely that countries have a different way of reporting classifying what exactly constitutes being alive.

 

 

Better health care leads to fewer premature babies- more or less by thedefinition of "better" and "health".

Show me something that can back up that statement. There are theories about causes for preterm percentages going up, but I haven't seen anything definite on the matter.

 

No. Some of the babies will be aborted because they are found to havecongenital problems.

But an aborted foetus isn't counted towards the infant mortality rate.

So, if the US were offering , for example, better screening and this was thereason for the higher number of abortions (and I'm willing to bet it isn't)then the infant mortality rate would be lower in the US.

It isn't.

My point on this was, that if the US's technology is gaining ground in the area of saving at-risk pregnancies, then countries that are behind in that area will have more abortions due to the fact that the odds of saving the child are lower. Therefoe would have fewer at-risk births lowering their rate, while the US is having MORE at-risk births upping their rate. Does that make sense?Because now when a doctor finds something wrong in a sonogram, they will have a way to fix it rather than automatically thinking of abortion. Where in a less advanced country abortion may be the option thought of first. This can affect that rate.

 

It has a higher infant mortality rate which also indicated poorhealthcare.

 

And again you're missing my point.

 

You can have a healthcare system that significantly reduces the chancesof you being shot or murdered. It doesn't involve asking people how much moneythey have before considering the appropriate medical treatment.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

It is founded on the basis that, as you pointed out the US certainly hasthe medical knowledge to offer better treatment to many of it's citizens.

Since the US is reasonably democratic, the people have chosen not to.

 

How so?

 

Get a grip.

It's not a big challenge to find out if a baby dies- you can often ask themother who will generally know.

Feeling a little cheeky are we? I think I answered this above.

 

For an answer to spending percentages and amounts, let me ask a question of my own. What's wrong with this? http://politicalcalc...ate-part-1.html

 

 

 

iNow,

I look at the economics of the question.

speaking of economics, I'll ask you the same question. What's wrong with this? http://politicalcalc...ate-part-1.html

 

I then look at the outcome of the care. We do worse on many measures, and to suggest otherwise means you are not approaching this discussion in good faith. I have no patience for that.

http://politicalcalc...-in-united.html who's outcome iNow?

 

You've been provided data and chosen to argue instead that it's flawed, even though the experts in the field accept it as valid. Given your concession that you know little and have seen little, I'm inclined not to waste any more time here.

I'm not saying the datas flawed. I'm saying the arguement based on the datas flawed, and I gave my reasons.

 

Are you suggesting that hundreds of thousands of woman who get pregnant do NOT lack health coverage?

You're good at pulling up graphs...show me some numbers that support your assertion that "pregnant women lose their babies for lack of healthcare". PLEASE. Just so you can live up to your own standards when I make assertions based on a seeming assumption.

 

Not long. They admit patients immediately like any other ER. Also, given the nature of your argument, how about I refute it at its core? You're saying wait times are lower in the US than in countries with universal care, and you are again wrong (don't you get tired of being wrong and some day hope to change your position so it stops happening?).

Not really.http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/09/01/hospital-waiting-lists-keep-growing/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10503101

 

http://nahealth.blog...ian-system.html

Phi,

 

Make no mistake, it's part of your compensation

What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance.

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

John,

 

How not?

They count dead babies. It's not rocket science.

In many or most countries, the state was funding prenatal care for the women. Do you think they "don't notice" the absence of a baby as an outcome?

So you think they include abortions in the infant mortality rating? Why would they include abortions and not still births or micarriages?

Let's look at cuba. http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

 

How?

Much infant mortality is related to premature birth- and you can't really judge that till it's far too late to consider abortion.

Yes and the US delivers more premature babies than any other country due to higher levels of technology and better care. Do you not think that is a major factor to be contributed to the stats. So it isn't that more babies are dying for lack of care in the US, it's more at risk babies are being brought to term and given a chance to survive.

 

 

Also, you might want to look at the numbers.

The US has higher abortion rates than most of the West

http://www.johnstons.../wrjp334pd.html

So their high infant mortality rate looks even worse by your criterion.

Looking at the numbers only strengthened my claim as far as I can see. Even the example I gave (Cuba) was only the fifth one down. You don't think that abortion rate coupled with the amount of care for "at risk" pregnancies can be a reason that the US's numbers look so bad?

 

I chose those data because they are pretty robust. Diagnostic criteria for "dead" are fairly consistent across the world.

I also chose them because I didn't think anyone would feel the need to question them.

I think you chose them because they were the ones that make the US's medical care seem insufficient. And no, the criteria for "dead" is not the same everywhere. Different countries have different criteria for reporting. Some say that this has no bearing on the statistics, but I don't see how it can't.

 

Are you saying that fairness etc. is a bad thing?

No I'm saying reports like that shouldn't be used when arguing for a universal healthcare system, especially when the report automatically gives negative remarks for not having one. Seems a little one sided doesn't it?

 

In respect of this

"Try getting a healthcare system that keeps from getting shot "

I think I already cited this

[/url]

I had left out a word in that sentence. I meant to say "Try getting a healthcare system that keeps someone from getting shot", because I felt it was also invalid to use a report as an arguement for a universal system that includes factors that healthcare cannot be judged on. Such as suicides, homicides, accidents, etc... Sure people can survive some of those things, but the study doesn't determine whether they were dead before they even got to the hospital.

 

"In fact America has played key roles in over 80% of major medical advancements in the past 3 decades. "

You see, you do know how to look after all the people- you just choose not to.

That's an unfounded, disinginous statement if I've ever heard one.

 

What problems would you add?

Do you understand that the rest of us must have addressed those problems to a degree or we wouldn't have better outcomes?

To a degree? Frances inability to control their healthcare deficit, Along with Italy's monetary problems and insufficient facilities, or Norway's 3month waiting period to even be admitted into a hospital. But the list can go on, but it doesn't matter, they've been adressed to a degree.

 

Arete,

 

A third is the crippling effect on an already downtrodden economy of medical bankruptcies. 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. http://articles.cnn....ce?_s=PM:HEALTH

Doesn't it seem funny that this data was taken at a time when unemployment was soaring. Do you think that there might have been different factors involved and that medical bills might have just been the easiest excuse to claim bankruptcy?

 

iNow,

 

You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

 

http://www.fareedzak...r_Everyone.html

I couldn't get anywhere with the link you provided. It just said "No results found", could you provide another. But to comment from the quote you have provided, spending is a problem that has resulted from several different factors. I don't see the need for such a broad change to fix a problem that can be dealt with on a lower scale. And any studies that put Cuba's healthcare quality above the US's should be rejected out of hand. It's just rediculous.

 

No, it doesn't seem that way at all. These measures have been the standard for decades. You don't get to change them now merely because you don't like the conclusions we're drawing from them.

When using the data to argue for a universal system it seems that the way the data is collected and the contributing factors for the numbers should matter when you "so haphazardly" draw your conclusions. When someone pulls up infant mortality rates and uses them as an arguement to support a universal system, then I think the contributing factors for those numbers matters greatly. Especially when it can be said that those numbers are greater because we have a better system that allows us to bring at risk pregnancies to term.

 

Much more simply, our infant mortality rate is high because so many pregnant women are uncovered and cannot afford treatment. Hundreds of thousands of women each year never see a doctor until their water breaks and it's time to deliver. It's those babies that are dying within one year of birth. You don't need to invoke screams of European abortions for this to hold true.

 

Care to inlighten me with some data? Maybe some numbers that aren't just off the cuff? I haven't seen a whole lot of this, so I find it a little hard to believe. You would think that out of the "hundreds of thousands" that this is happening to I would have at least heard about it. I'm surprised Michael Moore didn't mention it.

 

Countries with universal coverage, though?

Yes. Why don't you try and get a hospital bed in Norway these days. I wonder how long you would have to wait?

 

Please try to wrap your mind around this simple truth. Medical research medical coverage. The fact that great technology is available is completely moot when you don't have enough money or any coverage to take advantage of and use that technology.

Oh you got me there...What happens when the government runs out of money to pay the doctors or fund medical research? This is happening all over europe. They are running into huge deficits when it comes to healthcare. What do we do when this happens to our government, and please don't say print more money.

 

Captain,

I think the problem is very simple: in the USA, the poorest people receive less healthcare, because they can't afford it.

That is incorrect. We have programs for those that can't afford it to make it available to them.

The problem is that certain people have only limited access to it, because insurances and hospitals are all privatized.

 

There is a thing called Medicaid. If you make less than a certain amount per year, you and your children qualify for medical treatment.

 

iNow,

 

Try not to rely on that too much in the US.

Not when your basing that sense on false information and misconcieved perceptions.

Moontanman,

 

JustinW, you have really pissed me off

It's better than being pissed on.

 

But do you seriously think that anyone has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others?

Do you think that you have the right to make someone go against their religious beliefs, when they are well established and accepted beliefs. No one begrudged the contraceptive religious belief until the religious folks stopped wanting to pay for it. It's not like it is a belief that someone came up with last tuesday.

 

 

But to deny someone who does not believe the way you do birth control is wrong.

To make someone pay out of their pocket to specifically go against their beliefs is just as wrong.

If you own a business why is it your right to deny contraception to others?

 

Because if you own the business, you're paying for it.

 

But lets get beyond birth control, if your religion deems antibiotics as against your religion do you get to deny coverage for antibiotics?

Don't see why not. It's the same principle, you're still having to pay for people to go against your religion.

 

 

Do you get to require prayer be tried before medicine? Or in place of medicine?

Absolutely not. That would essentially be the same as requiring someone to pay for birth control who thinks it's against their religion.

 

 

You honestly seem to be an intelligent man, do you think that just because the exceptions are due to religion it will always be a religion you agree with? If your religion says it's ok to beat your wife then do you get to refuse to pay for medical treatment resulting from an employee beating his wife?

Why do people like to result to using BS analogies to try and prove their points. You know I would say no to that. Wife beating isn't any part of religious law here in the US, but birth control is a well established and widely accepted part of what some religions do not accept. It's not like I'm saying anyone can make up anything at anytime, and I think you're smart enough to understand the point I'm making here. Like I said when I started posting in this thread, I thought the conversation was a little one sided and figured I would argue from the opposing perspective. I really don't give a damn either way.

 

I cannot believe you would go for that, freedom of religion protects everyone from religious tyranny

Huh? Freedom of religion protects against persecution from government against religion. That's why you have the FREEDOM to chose your own religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you're fee OF religion

 

 

Again, it;s difficult for me to believe you are naive enough to believe that this, yes, people will treat you badly at the first opportunity

Man, I'm surprised you don't live in a bunker. It's good to look out for bad people but to say that the majority of people in this world are bad is rediculous. Does your assessment include yourself?

 

 

Good god man, think about it, can you imagine how bad it will be once the religious actually gain control?

They've had control for mellenia. What's new?

 

As long as men are in control we need to be protected from religion, no way around it...

As long as men are in control we need to be protected from men. Religion is just an excuse that men will use. Was Hitler religiouslly motivated? The answer is no. A secular nut is still a nut no matter how you look at it.

 

Do you know that Catholic Nuns have been required to take birth control pills by the Church?

So?

 

 

 

Jeskill,

Just as a hypothetical, imagine Judy is a Unitarian, so her religious affiliation does not prohibit the use of contraceptives. Now imagine she gets hired at a Catholic university. If the university prohibited her ability to use contraceptives, wouldn't that violate her freedom of religion by forcing her to abide by another religion's rules?

 

Not in the least. They're not telling her that she can't use contraceptives. They're just telling her that they aren't going to pay for them.