[JerryLove]

Protest all you want, but your only answer to my points is "Well, look at Europe."

Really? On the more than 4 posts where I've discussed Medicare as an example, how was that related to Europe?

That is not a valid argument. I only chose Canada because it would have the most similar systems, but it's still a far way off. Want more focus?

Which reminds me of our conversations of promptt medical care: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/15...oom/index.html

One of my favorites: Edith Rodriguez. Last year, she was on the floor of a Los Angeles hospital emergency room vomiting blood, and witnesses say no one did anything to help her. Her boyfriend actually called 911, which refused to help since she was already in a hospital. Rodriguez died in the emergency room.

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
12. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.

Read my FAQ on "Post your own thoughts". Never the less.

1) Government medicare is more efficient (by 12%) than private medicare. Also, government healtchare is more efficient (by varying, but up to 50%) than private healthcare.
2) Strawman. Services cost money. Healthcare would be cheaper, however, as it is cheaper in every contry that's tried it.
3) Proven untrue by medicare... also a straw-man because I never said we should remove private healthcare.
4) Support this claim
5) Which would be an argument against private healthcare as easily as public healthcare. Are you opposed to all health insurance?
6) Your theory is contraindicated by the facts. Since I'm discussing the real world, your positing on what isn't is irrellevent.
7) Which would be an argument against private healthcare as easily as public healthcare. Are you opposed to all health insurance?
8) Which would be an argument against private healthcare as easily as public healthcare. Are you opposed to all health insurance?
9) The healthcare industry would be hurt by more people having coverage? Absurd. How has medicare hurt Humana? It hasn't. Again, you are putting some unsuppotted tripe over real, observable, fact.
10) Which would be an argument against private healthcare as easily as public healthcare. Are you opposed to all health insurance?
11) Straw man.
12) Relies on several false presuppositions. But perhaps we shouldn't have guarenteed free speech in case we wanted to take it away later.

[qoute]And I'll add a point 13: If you're visiting another country, your insurance may be worthless. Some Canadians have come to America to have surgery (because of the lack of wait times and better in house medical care, just to have to pay for it out of pocket.[/quote] Which would be an argument against private healthcare as easily as public healthcare. Are you opposed to all health insurance?

A Forbes study listed the fattest countries, with America coming in at #9. Europeans countries on the list: Greece (16), UK (28), Germany (43), France (128), among others (none before Greece). Canada is number 35. Nauru is number 1...who knew? (95% of 13,500 people are overweight)

That would be http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/200...rldfat_2.html?

You mentioned Greece. It's within 5% of us on number of obese people, but 14 (ot our 37) for per-capita costs. It doesn't seem to bear you out.

There is also something to be said about the diversity of the population as well. Any doctor will tell you that different ethnic groups can be affected by illnesses and treatment differently. (of course, not all illnesses and treatments, I am generalizing a bit here)

So what ethnicity do you feel has no populations in Europe?

[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

4) Support this claim

Not to be the jerk that jumps into a debate to interject one point... but the "wait time" - for example, in Canada - is an issue for nationalized health care. About 25% of Canadians wait more than 4 hours at the emergency room versus 12% in the U.S. About 60% of Canadians wait more than four weeks to see a specialist, versus about 20% in the U.S.

Of course, the U.S. isn't a very good example of a free-market health care system... so I won't try to defend what we've got.

[LefseRae]

Just a jump-in, jump-out post: I can't STAND socialized healthcare, like Canada's. My great-aunt had cancer, and had to wait MONTHS for the idiots to get her in for surgery. I'm pretty sure they would've come to the US for the surgery, had they been able to afford it.[/rant]

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

One of my favorites: Edith Rodriguez. Last year, she was on the floor of a Los Angeles hospital emergency room vomiting blood, and witnesses say no one did anything to help her. Her boyfriend actually called 911, which refused to help since she was already in a hospital. Rodriguez died in the emergency room.

How would that situation be any different with universal healthcare? Would the staff had said, "oh, the government is picking up the bill, we should really help her out."


1. That is a very scary 12%. I guess you'd rather not let private competition encourage better performance. You have failed repeatedly to prove your 2nd point.
2. False; Services cost money, yes. Healthcare for 300,000,000 would cost a lot of money. Makes me wonder if you understand economics.
3. Except the government wouldn't be in the business of competing. It's not like it's about to go out of business. Example; medicare.
4. I have. Repeatedly.
5. Illogical. We have private healthcare now.
6. Sure man, whatever. Real world. Your reasoning on this is askew. Obviously you've never been to the county hospital after a freak motorboat accident. Couldn't pay, told them I couldn't pay. Never have received a bill. But that must have been in physics land or conservative town or whatever you crazy kids are calling it.
7.Illogical. We have private healthcare now.
8. I can almost see that point.Where it falls apart is that my premium doesn't pay for anything over another's deductible. For an obese smoker who spends his last thirty days on earth hooked up to a machine in the hospital, that number gets pretty high.
9. Well, since according to Humana's website they don't cover individuals over the age of 63.5, and since medicare primarily covers individuals over the age of 65, I'd say not much. Of course, you didn't mention that, so it hardly proves your point.
10.Illogical. We have private healthcare now. It's also worth noting that this same thing happened in Canada
11.I'll have to take you word for it since you gave no reasoning.
12. LOL, who's the straw man now? Free speech is granted by the constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare are not.
13. Illogical. We have private healthcare now. And mine is good in several different countries should I need it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mentioned Greece. It's within 5% of us on number of obese people, but 14 (ot our 37) for per-capita costs. It doesn't seem to bear you out.

200,000,000 obese in the US, 7,000,000 in Greece. These are simple numbers.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So what ethnicity do you feel has no populations in Europe?

You're attempting to take my words out of context. Thats not the correct question. You should ask what European country has such a diverse group in the same numbers(300,000,000).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Read my FAQ on "Post your own thoughts". Never the less.

Now see Jerry, until this point, I was willing to play along. But if you're not willing to follow your own rules, how can it be a fair and open discussion?

Welcome to iggy town.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by grand_master_d

Not to be the jerk that jumps into a debate to interject one point... but the "wait time" - for example, in Canada - is an issue for nationalized health care. About 25% of Canadians wait more than 4 hours at the emergency room versus 12% in the U.S. About 60% of Canadians wait more than four weeks to see a specialist, versus about 20% in the U.S.

Can you cite your statistics?

As to specialists, there are, bluntly, too many specialists in the US. The death-rate goes up when the proportion of specialists to general practitioners increases. Canada, in every objective comparison I am aware of, has better healthcare.

That said, I have not suggested that the government should employ the doctors nor run the hospitals... so there is no "wait time for a specialist or in an ER" actually at issue. The issue is coverage.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

Just a jump-in, jump-out post: I can't STAND socialized healthcare, like Canada's. My great-aunt had cancer, and had to wait MONTHS for the idiots to get her in for surgery. I'm pretty sure they would've come to the US for the surgery, had they been able to afford it.[/rant]

My BMT took 5 months to arrange with Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

How would that situation be any different with universal healthcare? Would the staff had said, "oh, the government is picking up the bill, we should really help her out."

Oh cool. So then you are asserting that whether health coverage is offered by the government or not has no bearing on wait times?

That makes you look rather silly for bringin up wait times in the first place doesn't it?

1. That is a very scary 12%. I guess you'd rather not let private competition encourage better performance. You have failed repeatedly to prove your 2nd point.
2. False; Services cost money, yes. Healthcare for 300,000,000 would cost a lot of money. Makes me wonder if you understand economics.
3. Except the government wouldn't be in the business of competing. It's not like it's about to go out of business. Example; medicare.
4. I have. Repeatedly.
5. Illogical. We have private healthcare now.
6. Sure man, whatever. Real world. Your reasoning on this is askew. Obviously you've never been to the county hospital after a freak motorboat accident. Couldn't pay, told them I couldn't pay. Never have received a bill. But that must have been in physics land or conservative town or whatever you crazy kids are calling it.
7.Illogical. We have private healthcare now.
8. I can almost see that point.Where it falls apart is that my premium doesn't pay for anything over another's deductible. For an obese smoker who spends his last thirty days on earth hooked up to a machine in the hospital, that number gets pretty high.
9. Well, since according to Humana's website they don't cover individuals over the age of 63.5, and since medicare primarily covers individuals over the age of 65, I'd say not much. Of course, you didn't mention that, so it hardly proves your point.
10.Illogical. We have private healthcare now. It's also worth noting that this same thing happened in Canada
11.I'll have to take you word for it since you gave no reasoning.
12. LOL, who's the straw man now? Free speech is granted by the constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare are not.
13. Illogical. We have private healthcare now. And mine is good in several different countries should I need it.

1) Again you seem to be hacking at a straw man that I oppose private healthcare. It's actually pretty tiring watching you argue with sometihng I've never said. That stated: private healthcare is currently competing ans has been for many years.. the result is less efficient than the federal governments.

Why are you so unwilling to discuss what I actually said?

2) Don't respond until you've answered this question: Which of the following two mathmatical statements totals more money. 300million (everyone) * $3,500 (the per-capita cost of healthcare in a western country with universal coverage), or 260million (the number currently insured in the US) * $6,000 (the current per-capita cost of healthcare in the US).

Are you brave enough to actually address what I'm saying?

3)How does the government not going out of business relate to the fact that there are private healthcare providers competing? How does the fact that the government is currently more efficient than the private providers now mean that it's less efficient?

4) Then you should have no problem doing a cut-n-paste. I'm doing far more for you in addressing your responses to things I didn't say, and responding to a post you cut-n-paste from a website.

5) You are correct. The fact that there is already healthcare makes your assertion that access to healthcare (my plan) would make people less efficient than they are now with access to health care (the current system). That was rather my point.

6) So your anticdote is intended to prove that no one has died for a lack of coverage. Do I really need to disprove your claim? There was a pretty recent example of someone with overage dying because the coverage refused to pay for an organ transplant. (http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/...fore_her_death)

http://www.highlighthealth.com/healt...-cancer-death/

On a more personal note. It seems I understand why you are opposed to universal healthcare... you would be forced to pay your share. Instead, you seem to have mooched of others, making me and those like me pay for your motor-boat accident without putting in so much as a premium.

7) You are correct. The fact that there is already healthcare makes your assertion that access to healthcare (my plan) would reduce doctor flexability compared to now with access to health care (the current system). That was rather my point.

8) Of course it does. The entire point of all health insurance is to spread coverage over everyone... otherwise all we would need were HSAs. If your hypothetical obese smoker had health insurance, you are paying for it.

The opposite problem is true in reality. Yong, healthy people are the least likely to carry health insurance. As such, their payments are not going into the pool as much. This makes the average cost higher per person for those who do have healthcare.

Worse, when one of those young healthy people has some oddball motor-boating accident adding a drain without adding a penny. The only fair thing to do would be let them die... anything else would be social healthcare, but at the expense of only a few.

9) I probably should mention that I actually work for Humana, and so am going to be more familiar with what we do and don't cover than you are. Humana certainly does do medicare: http://www.humana-medicare.com/index.asp

10) You are correct. The fact that there is already healthcare makes your assertion that access to healthcare (my plan) cause doctors to quit compared to now with access to health care (the current system). That was rather my point.

11) Tort reform is an issue unrelated to the distinction between public-private and private-only healthcoverage. As to suing the government healthcare department, they most certainly should be able to. Why should someone have no legal recource to enforce their contractual or legal rights?

12) What does that have to do with rights or not, and why would federally-backed health coverage be less accepted out-of-the-US than priave healthcoverage. Did you go to a country that doesn't accept US currency?

200,000,000 obese in the US, 7,000,000 in Greece. These are simple numbers.

Oh, I thought it was percentages... so it's total numbers?

OK. There are more obese people in Europe than in the Eastern US, so Eastern-US universal healthcare will work.

There are also more obese people in Europe than in the Western US, so Western-US universal healthcare will work.

If you prefer, I can break it down by state... universal healthcare could be as easily implemented there.

You're attempting to take my words out of context. Thats not the correct question. You should ask what European country has such a diverse group in the same numbers(300,000,000).

So which US state has more diversity than Europe?

I wasn't trying to change context, I was simply asuming you meant the most reasonable version of your claim (percentages) as absolute numbers are pretty obviously irrellevent.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Godslilrosebud

Just a jump-in, jump-out post: I can't STAND socialized healthcare, like Canada's. My great-aunt had cancer, and had to wait MONTHS for the idiots to get her in for surgery. I'm pretty sure they would've come to the US for the surgery, had they been able to afford it.[/rant]

I agree. My grandpa had to wait just about a year to get his hip surgery.

Then my uncles brother found out that he needed a surgery to save his life, but would take months to get. Basically he would of died waiting for public health care. So he was forced to go a private clinic in BC.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I agree. My grandpa had to wait just about a year to get his hip surgery.

But he got it. It takes longer to get surgery in Canada than it does in the US but the great thing is that we all have the opportunity to get hip surgery no matter how rich or poor we are. For me, it is a moral issue, healthcare should not be based on ability to pay.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by OneHope

But he got it. It takes longer to get surgery in Canada than it does in the US but the great thing is that we all have the opportunity to get hip surgery no matter how rich or poor we are. For me, it is a moral issue, healthcare should not be based on ability to pay.

Healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege.

I would rather pay less taxes now, and have good access to health care later when I need it, not a year after I need.

Also I recently read an article about Americans going abroad to get surgeries. Like to Asia. They would pay like $20k there to get a $100k procedure in the states. It sounded great, like opening up a new tier of competition.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege.

How very Christ-like a position... still, it's not a matter of fact and so cannot be argued without a complete tangent on rights.

I would rather pay less taxes now, and have good access to health care later when I need it, not a year after I need.

If you can afford it.

But there are two reasons that your argument holds no water:
1) Wait times are not determined by the insurance company, and it's govrenmental insurance I"m discussing.

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.

Also I recently read an article about Americans going abroad to get surgeries. Like to Asia. They would pay like $20k there to get a $100k procedure in the states. It sounded great, like opening up a new tier of competition.

It sounds great. Do you have $20k on you?

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege.

I disagree. Healthcare is a right. Why do I deserve healthcare more than someone else just because I was born into an affluent family or because I wasn't born without any health defects which would prevent me from getting health insurance. I believe that education should be socialized as well. Every person should be given an equal chance to succeed in society regardless of background and the two things that are essential for that are healthcare and education.

Originally Posted by normajean777

I would rather pay less taxes now, and have good access to health care later when I need it, not a year after I need.

Yet the United States spends more money per capita on health care than Canada for sure and I'm pretty sure most other countries with socialized healthcare.

Yes, there are drawbacks, but ultimately all things considered even though I'd be able to afford healthcare in a privatized system I would rather live in a country with socialized medicine and I've just been accepted to medical school.

Originally Posted by normajean777

Also I recently read an article about Americans going abroad to get surgeries. Like to Asia. They would pay like $20k there to get a $100k procedure in the states. It sounded great, like opening up a new tier of competition.

Sounds a bit dodgy.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by OneHope

I disagree. Healthcare is a right. Why do I deserve healthcare more than someone else just because I was born into an affluent family or because I wasn't born without any health defects which would prevent me from getting health insurance. I believe that education should be socialized as well. Every person should be given an equal chance to succeed in society regardless of background and the two things that are essential for that are healthcare and education.

Health care is simply a business. A researcher expects a return for doing research for new drugs. A doctor expects payment for saving lives, stopping discomforts. They provide a service, we simply need to pay them what the market allows them to charge.

Also by making higher education universal, you water down everybody's degree and higher education. If every single person has a degree because of their free education, then the degree is worthless because everybody is the same, and people must seek yet higher levels of education or ingenuity to get ahead. We've seen that effect already with requirements for jobs ever increasing despite the actual requirement of those requirements (degree, etc) in that particular job.

Yet the United States spends more money per capita on health care than Canada for sure and I'm pretty sure most other countries with socialized healthcare.

I never objected that nor commented on that. Quite simply I am a healthy man. I would rather get a huge tax cut and not have free health care. I would rather invest that money for a rainy day, when I may ever have to use the health care system, even at a very steep price. I believe I would profit and be better off in the long run.

Yes, there are drawbacks, but ultimately all things considered even though I'd be able to afford healthcare in a privatized system I would rather live in a country with socialized medicine and I've just been accepted to medical school.

Congrats on medical school.

I read in Forbes that the doctors in Canada elected a doctor who supports privatization. That doctor who opened the first private clinic in Canada, and was sued by the government, with the government losing. The judge said "equal access to a waiting list is not the same as equal access to health care". So the doctors as a whole do not like the public health system.

Also the huge wait lists have damaging effects:
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10042148/la_id/1.htm

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Health care is simply a business. A researcher expects a return for doing research for new drugs. A doctor expects payment for saving lives, stopping discomforts. They provide a service, we simply need to pay them what the market allows them to charge.

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

Originally Posted by normajean777

Also by making higher education universal, you water down everybody's degree and higher education. If every single person has a degree because of their free education, then the degree is worthless because everybody is the same, and people must seek yet higher levels of education or ingenuity to get ahead. We've seen that effect already with requirements for jobs ever increasing despite the actual requirement of those requirements (degree, etc) in that particular job.

I disagree. At least in Canada, university programs generally fill up across the country as far as I can tell. By making university universal, I don't mean opening up more spots, I just mean removing money as an element and making it so competition for spots is based entirely on academic ability. There would still be the same number of graduates, just if you work hard, you have the same chance as going to university as someone who is rich.

Originally Posted by normajean777

I never objected that nor commented on that. Quite simply I am a healthy man. I would rather get a huge tax cut and not have free health care. I would rather invest that money for a rainy day, when I may ever have to use the health care system, even at a very steep price. I believe I would profit and be better off in the long run.

But right now you are paying more tax dollars than we are into healthcare and you have privatized medicine. What I'm saying is that privatized medicine does not equal less taxes and socialized medicine does not equal more taxes neccessarily.

Originally Posted by normajean777

Congrats on medical school.

I read in Forbes that the doctors in Canada elected a doctor who supports privatization. That doctor who opened the first private clinic in Canada, and was sued by the government, with the government losing. The judge said "equal access to a waiting list is not the same as equal access to health care". So the doctors as a whole do not like the public health system.

Also the huge wait lists have damaging effects:
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10042148/la_id/1.htm

The British system seems to be an optimal mix of privatized and socialized healthcare.

[JerryLove]

Health care is simply a business. A researcher expects a return for doing research for new drugs. A doctor expects payment for saving lives, stopping discomforts. They provide a service, we simply need to pay them what the market allows them to charge.

The same argument could be made for every government function, from police to courts to the millitary.

Also by making higher education universal, you water down everybody's degree and higher education. If every single person has a degree because of their free education, then the degree is worthless because everybody is the same, and people must seek yet higher levels of education or ingenuity to get ahead. We've seen that effect already with requirements for jobs ever increasing despite the actual requirement of those requirements (degree, etc) in that particular job.

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.

Of course, your logic allows for the corrilary... if we get rid of all free education, then you can become a doctor with your high-school diploma... therefore we should do that?

I never objected that nor commented on that. Quite simply I am a healthy man. I would rather get a huge tax cut and not have free health care. I would rather invest that money for a rainy day, when I may ever have to use the health care system, even at a very steep price. I believe I would profit and be better off in the long run.

I was really healthy when I got cancer too.

I assume you have and will opt-out of employer healthcare for your entire life?

I read in Forbes that the doctors in Canada elected a doctor who supports privatization. That doctor who opened the first private clinic in Canada, and was sued by the government, with the government losing. The judge said "equal access to a waiting list is not the same as equal access to health care". So the doctors as a whole do not like the public health system.

Let me remind you that this is a red-herring. I have not advocated the government running the offices and clinics... I'm discussing universal health insurance.

Also the huge wait lists have damaging effects:
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10042148/la_id/1.htm

Definately: http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/...fore_her_death ... only that was in the US. I wonder if this means that you are inventing causality where it doesn't actually exist.