[Bryan]

Originally Posted by OneHope

I guess I just see healthcare as fundamentally different. In my mind, healthcare is a right.

um, where do you get that idea, it isn't in the constitution.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of course this is rediculious. You can't get a high-degree without the scholarly ability to get one... if you can, it has nothing to do with universal access.

In fact, I would expect the opposite... when all education is paid for, the difference in acceptance/rejection should move from who can afford to who has the best credientials.

you can't deny that as more and more people are getting a college education in our day as compared to say 1950 that a bachelors degree holds the same weight. Now MBA's are often the degree you need to succeed in many areas where it didn't use to be required.

[natedawg5280]

If you're talking about implementing universal healthcare in the United States, how is the government supposed to be able to afford it? With the level of government debt that there is, this would just be an added expense and taxes would be raised for this when they probably need to be for a ton of other things as well. It would be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Jerrylove

2) Wait times are a problem in the US as well. Many people have died waiting... therefore govrenment insurance is not the *cause* of wait times.

But aren't wait times in the U.S. typically better then those in Canada? Just because both aren't perfect doesn't make neither better then the other.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Bryan

um, where do you get that idea, it isn't in the constitution.

That's like asking where did the writers of the Constitution get the idea that free speech or freedom of conscience is a right. And I am not American.

Originally Posted by Bryan

you can't deny that as more and more people are getting a college education in our day as compared to say 1950 that a bachelors degree holds the same weight. Now MBA's are often the degree you need to succeed in many areas where it didn't use to be required.

If subsidized eduation meant more people in universities then I would agree with you. But, in my mind subsidized education would just mean that academic ability is the only thing that would determine who attended the existing university spots. You would get the same number of graduates.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

If you're talking about implementing universal healthcare in the United States, how is the government supposed to be able to afford it? With the level of government debt that there is, this would just be an added expense and taxes would be raised for this when they probably need to be for a ton of other things as well. It would be ridiculous.

As ridiculous as Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden and a whole host of other developed countries. The American taxpayer pays more for healthcare right now than I do in my 'socialist nightmare' that is Canada.

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by OneHope

As ridiculous as Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden and a whole host of other developed countries. The American taxpayer pays more for healthcare right now than I do in my 'socialist nightmare' that is Canada.

I'm not talking about how much the American pays, I'm talking about how much the government would have to pay. And right now it doesn't seem like they could afford it. Canada and France and the UK are not bankrupt and in debt over their heads.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by OneHope

That's like asking where did the writers of the Constitution get the idea that free speech or freedom of conscience is a right. And I am not American.



If subsidized eduation meant more people in universities then I would agree with you. But, in my mind subsidized education would just mean that academic ability is the only thing that would determine who attended the existing university spots. You would get the same number of graduates.

but that's just not the case. education is already subsidized and there are millions of dollars in grant, scholarship and loan money. Money isn't really a barrier to education any more. Anybody can get enough money to pay for education, especially if it is a state school.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by natedawg5280

If you're talking about implementing universal healthcare in the United States, how is the government supposed to be able to afford it? With the level of government debt that there is, this would just be an added expense and taxes would be raised for this when they probably need to be for a ton of other things as well. It would be ridiculous.

But aren't wait times in the U.S. typically better then those in Canada? Just because both aren't perfect doesn't make neither better then the other.

well you raise taxes. just because we are already spending too much doesn't mean that a program that we should have shouldn't be started with an increase in taxes.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well you raise taxes. just because we are already spending too much doesn't mean that a program that we should have shouldn't be started with an increase in taxes.

Raising taxes will send the economy into recession. Besides the US already has fairly high taxes especially for corporations and such. It needs to keep lowering taxes and cutting programs from the government.

And Jerry, just because you advocate for universal insurance doesn't mean that health care in Canada is a bad example. We have trouble providing care for 35 million people, and you expect to provide care for 300 million people. Good luck on that. I don't think it can be done without a lot of waste, corruption, and huge instability toward the economy.

Also to the point on universities: in Canada university is so cheap, that anyone can get in anyway. The only thing that stops anyone would be marks. Tuition is about $5k for a year. A foreign student doesn't get the subsidies and has got to pay about $25k to get in. And if you can't afford that, there are a huge number of financing options available these days as stated earlier.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Raising taxes will send the economy into recession. Besides the US already has fairly high taxes especially for corporations and such. It needs to keep lowering taxes and cutting programs from the government.

if you raise taxes and at the same time people have to stop paying for health insurance it is a wash.

And Jerry, just because you advocate for universal insurance doesn't mean that health care in Canada is a bad example. We have trouble providing care for 35 million people, and you expect to provide care for 300 million people. Good luck on that. I don't think it can be done without a lot of waste, corruption, and huge instability toward the economy.

nobody is advocating that the government provide the health care, just pay for it. there is a difference. the providers are the doctors, hospitals, etc. changing who pays for it won't really make that much of a difference, except that the government won't be doing it for profit so it should be cheaper.

[normajean777]

The flaw in that is, that the government is either pay hospitals a profitable sum for their services, costing taxpayers a huge amount (and then add in all the waste and corruption), or they want to pinch pennies, causing either hospitals to shut down, or to simply stop accepting any insurance at all. My dad owns a company that never deals with any customers who would like to use insurance, because they won't pay in a timely manner, and will squabble about the price. In either case the taxpayers get the short end of the stick.

Also would you guys be paying for illegal immigrants still or what? Any thought about that and how it applies to this picture?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by normajean777

The flaw in that is, that the government is either pay hospitals a profitable sum for their services, costing taxpayers a huge amount (and then add in all the waste and corruption), or they want to pinch pennies, causing either hospitals to shut down, or to simply stop accepting any insurance at all. My dad owns a company that never deals with any customers who would like to use insurance, because they won't pay in a timely manner, and will squabble about the price. In either case the taxpayers get the short end of the stick.

why don't we just pay them what they are paid now? why increase it or decrease it?

Also would you guys be paying for illegal immigrants still or what? Any thought about that and how it applies to this picture?

and what about legal visitors to the US. if they get ill or injured while visiting, should the insurance cover them too?

[JerryLove]

you can't deny that as more and more people are getting a college education in our day as compared to say 1950 that a bachelors degree holds the same weight. Now MBA's are often the degree you need to succeed in many areas where it didn't use to be required.

The requirements are different. Do you really think a 1950s auto-mechanic (a job which still requires no more than trade-school) could acutally operate the modern diagnostic equipment?)... but we digress.

If you're talking about implementing universal healthcare in the United States, how is the government supposed to be able to afford it? With the level of government debt that there is, this would just be an added expense and taxes would be raised for this when they probably need to be for a ton of other things as well. It would be ridiculous.

I could ask the same of the economic stimulus package... fiscal healthcare.

Some options include:
- Raising a tax
- Lowering other costs
- Deficit spending

If I pulled the entire $3500 per person from new/raised personal and corporate taxes, everyone would still have more money in their pockets than they do now (recepients of theovercharging in healthcare now not withstanding).

When we look at the sums, the costs are lower than now.

But aren't wait times in the U.S. typically better then those in Canada? Just because both aren't perfect doesn't make neither better then the other.

The objective measures universally put US healthcare as inferior to Canadian healthcare (US is 37th on a list of countries).

Raising taxes will send the economy into recession. Besides the US already has fairly high taxes especially for corporations and such. It needs to keep lowering taxes and cutting programs from the government.

How do you figure that the US has high taxes?

How do you figure that raising a tax would cause recession (lowering it hasn't stopped recession, and people will have more money on the whole as the money saved in primiums exceeds that spent in taxes).... of course, I could start a general rant on how lowering taxes plays to perception where spending plays to reality... but it's more than a bit off-topic.

And Jerry, just because you advocate for universal insurance doesn't mean that health care in Canada is a bad example. We have trouble providing care for 35 million people, and you expect to provide care for 300 million people. Good luck on that. I don't think it can be done without a lot of waste, corruption, and huge instability toward the economy.

There we are with numbers again.

The 36 countries with better healthcare than us cover more than 300,000,000 people. There's no invisible fairy making things not work at some arbitrary number. If you are that obsessed with numbers, just make 10 different zones in the US with individual coverage. That's only 30 million.

nobody is advocating that the government provide the health care, just pay for it. there is a difference. the providers are the doctors, hospitals, etc. changing who pays for it won't really make that much of a difference, except that the government won't be doing it for profit so it should be cheaper.

And if a private company can do the job cheaper, then they can make money. I don't advocate that people *must* take the government provided healthcoverage. You don't *have* to take medicare now.

The flaw in that is, that the government is either pay hospitals a profitable sum for their services, costing taxpayers a huge amount (and then add in all the waste and corruption), or they want to pinch pennies, causing either hospitals to shut down, or to simply stop accepting any insurance at all. My dad owns a company that never deals with any customers who would like to use insurance, because they won't pay in a timely manner, and will squabble about the price. In either case the taxpayers get the short end of the stick.

Realy? I know some very rich doctors who get paid by insurance... your dad must be pretty greedy. Maybe that's why medical costs in the US are so unaffordable.

and what about legal visitors to the US. if they get ill or injured while visiting, should the insurance cover them too?

I'd say no. I'd leave the current requirement to provide emergency care, but when I say "universal", I don't mean "everyone in the world".

[natedawg5280]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I could ask the same of the economic stimulus package... fiscal healthcare.

I've never pretended to support the economic stimulus package.

Originally Posted by Jerrylove

When we look at the sums, the costs are lower than now.

I don't care about how much we're paying, I'm talking about gov't money.

Originally Posted by Jerrylove

The objective measures universally put US healthcare as inferior to Canadian healthcare (US is 37th on a list of countries).

What are the 'objective measures'? The number of people covered by healthcare...?

Originally Posted by Jerrylove

And if a private company can do the job cheaper, then they can make money. I don't advocate that people *must* take the government provided healthcoverage. You don't *have* to take medicare now.

But you do have to pay taxes for the gov't healthcare even if you aren't using it... that sounds fun. And people like Romney would be taxing people who went without healthcare. Shouldn't we have the right to choose not to have healthcare at all without being taxed?


I haven't been in this discussion for long so I'm not sure what you're saying about the quality decrease that would result and the waiting lists that would arise due to 'universal healthcare'. Have you rebutted those arguments? They're good enough reasons for me, coupled with the fact that I don't think our country can afford it.
Also, I'm a Christian but I don't think it's our government's job to employ entirely Christian morals or principles in its policies. I think the churches and charitable organizations should help the needy, etc. I'm not one who feels it's the gov'ts responsibility to provide healthcare at all.

Besides, isn't there medicaid and medicare already? Can't you apply to those if you can't afford insurance?

Research and technology could also decrease as a result of UHC. It also feels kind of anti-american, considering that we have always been an individualist capitalist nation. It would also result in rationing of care. We'd also be paying for immigrants, which doesn't sound fun.

Look at our private schools (colleges) and their high quality, some of the best in the world. Then look at the public schools, not nearly as good. I mean we're not a socialist nation, so why should we stray from capitalism and get UHC?

[JerryLove]

What are the 'objective measures'? The number of people covered by healthcare...?

To pick one example, the WHO: WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

Some other good numbers (if a little older) can be found at http://www.pnrec.org/2001papers/DaigneaultLajoie.pdf

Even I was surprised to see that we have the worst infant mortality rate in the G7

But you do have to pay taxes for the gov't healthcare even if you aren't using it... that sounds fun. And people like Romney would be taxing people who went without healthcare. Shouldn't we have the right to choose not to have healthcare at all without being taxed?

Only if I can completely refuse you any and all care, including life-saving care.

Though you still have the problem of those who don't choose no care but can't afford care either... the poor, children, many elderly, etc.

I'm curious why people who aren't targets of terrorism are paying for the war? I don't think Al-Queida was planning on attacking rural Alabama.

I haven't been in this discussion for long so I'm not sure what you're saying about the quality decrease that would result and the waiting lists that would arise due to 'universal healthcare'. Have you rebutted those arguments? They're good enough reasons for me, coupled with the fact that I don't think our country can afford it.

Yes, I showed that they were red herrings.

Also, I'm a Christian but I don't think it's our government's job to employ entirely Christian morals or principles in its policies. I think the churches and charitable organizations should help the needy, etc. I'm not one who feels it's the gov'ts responsibility to provide healthcare at all.

I hope you equally oppose marriage laws, laws restricting adoption, etc... honestly, I'm not sure how you justify police (assuming you do).

Besides, isn't there medicaid and medicare already? Can't you apply to those if you can't afford insurance?

And dozens of other programs as well... and yet many who need healthcare don't have it.

I propose a system that covers everyone, requires less regulation, and saves money. Interestingly, there are those who oppose this.

Research and technology could also decrease as a result of UHC. It also feels kind of anti-american, considering that we have always been an individualist capitalist nation. It would also result in rationing of care. We'd also be paying for immigrants, which doesn't sound fun.

Anything could happen. If you are asserting that it would, please prove your claim before you expect a disproof.

Look at our private schools (colleges) and their high quality, some of the best in the world. Then look at the public schools, not nearly as good. I mean we're not a socialist nation, so why should we stray from capitalism and get UHC?

You mean like why UCLA and MIT are such crap compared the the University of Pheonix and DeVry institute?

I wonder why countries with public education systems rule the world then... odd...