^too bad you already pay for everyone else's health care.

10/1/2007 1:53:08 PM

^ As do you, which is why I'm sure you'll have no issues with me billing all future medical expenses to you directly.

10/1/2007 2:12:11 PM

giving people "free ins." and "free medicine", i believe, has caused people to take less care of themself. In the past when your doctor told you that you were borderline diabetic and you either needed to lose 10 lbs, watch what you ate, or you would have to go on costly medicine, you faced a financial burden. Now, its much easier to take another free pill, than to adjust a lifestyle. It is sad, but they have taken away the financial consequences for many, by shifting it onto others.

10/1/2007 3:18:55 PM

Quote :

"That said, after being around young children I find it very hard to believe there is not something innate to the human psyche which leads to the creation and enforcement of private property. Even pure communist societies maintained personal private property in the form of my bike, my loaf of bread, and my money."

Sure. Almost everyone believes in personal possessions. These are fairly easily to guard without the government's help. However, extending property claims to things the owner doesn't actually use is more than a little strange.

10/1/2007 3:52:51 PM

^^ So you're saying that TOO much health care is why people are getting sick and fat?

I would say it's a combination of ignorance and food industry politics that causes this... not because people have too cheap or easily available healthcare.

10/1/2007 4:11:55 PM

I think taking away responsibility is making people more unhealthy. I also think it drives up the cost of healthcare for others. Thats why people run to the hospital for a sore throat, bc its cheaper than 80 bucks at primecare...bc they have no intention of paying for it. Its almost universal that you dont appreciate something that is given to you as much as if you work for it.

10/1/2007 4:26:44 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying that TOO much health care is why people are getting sick and fat? I would say it's a combination of ignorance and food industry politics that causes this... not because people have too cheap or easily available healthcare."

It's a combination of such factors. But are you seriously suggesting that in this age of "Take this pill and lose a bajillion pounds in one week! (side effects include rectal bleeding, giant penis and monkey's crawling out of your ass)" that people are not more likely to want to go on random medicine that only costs them $10 a month than change their lifestyle and the foods they eat?

10/1/2007 5:06:23 PM

blowjobs are a right!

pursuit of happyness yo

10/1/2007 5:07:31 PM

Quote :

"It's more fun to blow up brown people than to make sure people aren't getting sick. "

blow up brown people ---> profits
make sure people aren't getting sick ---> no profits

10/3/2007 9:20:27 AM

^ False

If everyone has health coverage, I don't see why it wouldn't increase, if only at least by volume, the amount of patients health care businesses would have.

10/3/2007 5:10:52 PM

I believe its unfortunate that Bush used only his 4th veto on children’s health insurance which had some bipartisan support. I think it was a good middle ground between what the left and the right wants. Which at the extremes are universal health insurance, and no social nets from the gov whatsoever. It would be a good way of testing the waters in the real world, so people could point to it and say this is working well lets expand, or this isn’t working we can’t expand it to all Americans. This could of had the effect of making health insurance the norm for a lot of kids who would continue the practice of preventative medicine, and purchasing health insurance into their adult lives.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 6:03:42 PM

yeah, hey, let's totally ease people in to the idea of a horrible plan so that it will make them far less suspecting of it in the future...

yeah, let's avoid the real problem that is at hand in order to give the gov't another excuse to waste our money. yeah, that's such a great idea!!!

10/3/2007 6:07:17 PM

I don't know if it would work, but it would give people examples of failure or success to point to when talking about universal health care while being a middle ground on a current political issue that has social benefits/utility in mind, and that already has some bipartisan support for being done this way.

10/3/2007 6:14:10 PM

i don't know if it would work, but how about we go ahead and legalize one kind of murder, just to see if it catches on so we can legalize the rest of it...

i don't give a fuck if universal healthcare would be successful or not, and neither do most of the people who are against it (besides the fact that we have plenty of examples of it already on which we can base opinions). I don't believe that healthcare is a right for ANYONE, so I certainly don't that the gov't should pay for ANYONE'S healthcare. period.

THAT is why your notion of "testing the waters" with CHIP is stupid...

10/3/2007 6:30:18 PM

I wonder what kind of moral dilemmas a person would face down the line if they are both:

- for universal health care
- for the right to euthanasia

10/3/2007 6:39:33 PM

although I am not a proponent of universal health care; personally I would rather my tax $$$ be spent on helping Americans than blowing up sand niggers in Iraq in order to provide $$$ contracts for haliburton and beneficial oil contracts to Bush's oil buddies.

As much money we have spent in Iraq, plenty of that money could have done to actually help our society instead of turning another society into chaos. How much has Iraq cost like 200 billion or some bigger astronomical number

10/4/2007 12:10:14 AM

The entire Iraq war would be a small fraction of the cost of a single payer healthcare system.

10/4/2007 12:12:23 AM

or, how about we don't force people to pay for an unConstitutional program, period? If you want to help little kids get insurance, then fine; go support your favorite charity that does that. Leave me and my money alone.

10/4/2007 1:12:08 AM

burro hates the children.

Quote :

"... This could of had the effect of making health insurance the norm for a lot of kids who would continue the practice of preventative medicine, and purchasing health insurance into their adult lives. "

doubtful at best. If the government pays for something then most people think of it as "free". If anything it probably creates an even lower expectation of what should be paid later by that person for health care.

Anyway this is all BS, they're kids, they don't care about going to the doctor. If we really want to talk about changing future habits then education is a more suitable venue. Moreover, you folks on the left already have plenty of folks in the schools to taint the minds of the youth in this direction. So just wait a few more years until more lazy socialist types are of voting age and profit.

10/4/2007 6:10:06 AM

nothing the govt provides is "free". It is soley funded by the taxpayers. If people would somehow come to realize that, then maybe people would think before they vote for stupid shit like this. However, we have a growing pop. that is dependant on the govt, so it wont be long before they can have whatever they want= the end of democracy.

10/4/2007 10:36:51 AM

As I said in my previous posts; I do not agree with government giving everyone handouts. On the flip side I think their are some circumstances where the gov't has the civic duty to act as a safety net; not as a lifeline as so many US citizens use it as leeching off the system their entire lives. With that thought I do not buy the whole "let charities" deal with helping people. I do not think charities as a whole are not efficient enough or are capable of acquiring the necessary resources to help those in need during acute situation of unemployment or devastating life situation.

10/4/2007 11:03:20 AM

^red cross? Seems to do a better job than fema

I see your point, but I feel that when the govt has this big an organizational fubar, they should keep thier hands out of healthcare.

10/4/2007 11:13:42 AM

Healthcare just needs to be reformed.

10/4/2007 11:19:02 AM

^why? because the news tells you that? Because its expensive? Well its expensive to become a doctor, carry ins, have the latest in equipment.. Actually doctors visits arent expensive by any means.

Health ins. however needs some tweaking. However, people need to have realistic goals on what INSURANCE is. If you use it..it goes up. Its true with most insurances, why would healthcare be any different. Well it is, bc govt comes in and makes companies ins. bad risks and sets thier rates, indirectly through legislature or directly through subin out thier medicare payments. The consumer never sees any neg. consequences for their OWN actions bc the govt/taxpayers foot the bill. Govt needs OUT of healthcare.

There was a foot doctor that got sued bc a patient never returned for her follow up care after a surgery. It was noted that she missed her appointment, a letter was sent but she never returned. She sued after she got an infection later and lost her foot. THe jury awarded the woman the case bc the doctor didnt stress to her how important her Post-op care really is and, get this, TRACK HER DOWN and make sure she returns. LOL. WTF is wrong with people. They also recommend sending letters certified mail, bc they have no way of knowing whether she got the letter for her missed appointment.. What the fuck ever. I already lose money on alot of insurances, but to think im sending a certified letter to everyone who misses an appointment is a crock of shit. Hell, why dont i just give these patients my car, since Im already giving up my time and losing money.

THe main problem with healthcare is the same problem with our society. lack of responsibility. People dont want to pay a month ins. premium, bc they dont value it. THen something happens and they have a big bill to pay.. Thats the breaks. You see it in lawsuits, these idiots wanting to bailout the mortgage industry bc THEY took a risk and it bit them.

Just how i see it... sorry for the rant. haha

10/4/2007 11:35:45 AM

Quote :

"There was a foot doctor that got sued bc a patient never returned for her follow up care after a surgery. "

That is the shit i am talking about.

10/4/2007 11:54:19 AM

I would prefer to see more money spent on programs like CHIP, which require contribution on behalf of the parents versus money spent on Medicaid.

Health insurance payments do not going directly into physicians hands; the large majority ends up back with the healthcare companies themselves. IMO, they are taking advantage of the system by increasing charges substancially for less covered services. Yes physicians mark up the cost of procedures and office visits, but rarely are they paid the actual amount they charge.

I don't like the idea of socialized healthcare, I think in the long run it will harm businesses who use their benefits packages to stay competitive with larger companies. I think there should be greater intervention; prehaps a price ceiling which would enable self-employed or very small businesses to afford to offer health insurance to their employees.

10/4/2007 11:55:15 AM

I know that our business had our BC/BS premiums go up 14% this year, while our reimbursement was cut 3%. So yeah, they are making big money. Thats why I feel people should purchase thier own ins, in case of something big, but pay for thier doctors visits. Everyone will be better off. THe problem with govt run anything is there are no incentives to be good. Currently, if you are a bad doctor you will starve...unless you are the only doctor in town. Right now we try to keep our office looking professional, bc if it looks like shit people will go elsewhere. Contrast that with the local free health deptarments..alot of them dont give a shit..bc they know they arent going anywhere else.

as far as doctors fees being raised. Its the only counter we have to seeing our reimbursement rates cut. So you raise your fees so you dont get cut, or as much of a cut. Medicare seems to be the pace car for other ins. companies. Thye look at the average cost of a procedure per a region and set thier fees from those averages, often less than average. THey also penalize you for using/getting new equipment. For example, we have a scanning laser in the office. Its a 120k dollar piece of equipment. When we first got it we got 160 bucks for running the test. This last year we only get 52. So we lost our ass on that piece of equipment, but it aids with patient management...so what do you do? We kept it.

Most doctors know that thier fees are for ins. companies, and give the cash payers good discounts to help them out. However, some bigger practices or commercial practices dont allow the docs to make that call and charge everyone, or it goes through a seperate billing dept.

If healthcare goes national, I would love to move to raleigh or charlotte and open up a cash only practice. I could have half the staff, see less patients, spent time with patients, and make more money. I think they would be happier bc of the lack of most paperwork, and not waiting. Its just my dream and my plan if this thing goes universal. However, if we do a canadian plan that would be illegal.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 12:10:09 PM

10/4/2007 6:28:38 PM

i like how BSBC used to be not for profit, not they are for profit...that was a great switch for consumers

10/4/2007 10:27:56 PM

Liberty, freedom, property rights, etc., all great things, fundamentally American things, all worth being protected

But all of them should be innate. They should not come with the qualifier that you only get to have them if you can afford to not be dead. If only our founding fathers had said something about this...

Oh that's right, they did. They put "life" before "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness."

Whenver it is possible to provide them, human beings have a right to the basic necessities of life. The bare minimum. Gruel, as long as it will keep you nourished, a cinder-block homeless shelter, as long as it will keep you at a liveable temperature, and medical care, sufficient to stave off illness.

10/4/2007 11:31:38 PM

Hmm, the declaration of independence, best I can figure, is not a legally binding document.

That said, basic necessities such as free shelter, free food, and free medical care have only been unavailable in a few rare instances in American history.

10/5/2007 8:11:08 AM

Quote :

"I do not buy the whole "let charities" deal with helping people. I do not think charities as a whole are not efficient enough or are capable...."

keep in mind that government programs are mostly competing with charities, not collaborating

if they weren't competing, charities would be more able to complete with each other

just like if we got back the taxes from canceling these programs, there'd be more money to donate to charities

besides, even if taxes were used, they could simply subsidize private charities only when they aren't meeting needs

not used to create massive bureaucratic government run programs that set all kinds of unconstitutional precedents


^^

Quote :

"life"

life ≠ health care

taking care of your health is no one's responsibility but your own

unless someone else is directly responsible for the damage to it

just like keeping a job

maintaining your property

and driving your car, etc.

a right to "life" means that you are unfettered in the exercise of these responsibilities

government involvement is the threat to the right to "life" here, not instances of individual irresponsibility

seeking help from family, church, or private charities is one way of exercising this responsibility

relying on the government to steal someone's earnings to provide the care is not responsible

Quote :

"But all of them should be innate."

in your personal opinion

Quote :

"Whenver it is possible to provide them, human beings have a right..."

except that rights don't depend on the ability to provide them

you either have the right or you don't

even if it's denied, you still have it (killing or imprisoning me doesn't remove my right to life or liberty, respectively)

and no living being has a right to the basic necessities of life

because natural selection, the very fabric of life, would constantly need to violate this alleged right

some things can live, others die, but to "guarantee" the provisions needed for life is biologically irresponsible

that's analogous to a cancer cell's angiogenesis, or something

as much as you want to believe it, humans aren't gods, we're just living beings on a big round rock

you seem to want nothing other than for human kind to continue to grow as a cancer on our planet

IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT US

LIFE REQUIRES DEATH

AND THE MOST EQUITABLE WAY TO DETERMINE DEATH

IS TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH LIVING THING

HUMAN OR NOT

Quote :

"or, how about we don't force people to pay for an unConstitutional program, period? If you want to help little kids get insurance, then fine; go support your favorite charity that does that. Leave me and my money alone."

agreed

you can also mail your checks directly to the IRS

but don't be authorizing them to take MY money

[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2007 10:08:59 AM

Quote :

"[quote]But all of them should be innate. They should not come with the qualifier that you only get to have them if you can afford to not be dead. If only our founding fathers had said something about this... Oh that's right, they did. They put "life" before "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness.""

I am pretty sure they did not have health insurance or even a readily available system of health care back when the founding
fathers wrote the declaration of independence. Therefore your statement is void. They were most likely talking about the right to
"life" as in the government not sending you to the gallows over not paying your taxes or your neighbor blowing you away with his
shotgun over a property dispute. Back in the 1700's if you were living in a hut in the middle of the boondocks and got sick then
you were S.O.L. If your family could afford a doctor then great but most likely they gave you some whiskey, herbal medicine, and hoped you
sweated it out.

Quote :

"keep in mind that government programs are mostly competing with charities, not collaborating if they weren't competing, charities would be more able to complete with each other"

Your view on charities is pretty fucking warped. I consider myself libertarian but this extreme
version of libertarianism is the reason why the libertarian movement will never really take off.
You are pretty retarted if you think people would hand over a bunch more money to charities if
income tax was eliminated. There is a reason nearly every country in the world has a government agency
to help deal with natural disasters and poverty. Charities are great but they are just an added bonus.

Quote :

"not used to create massive bureaucratic government run programs that set all kinds of unconstitutional precedents"

I am guessing a giant organization like the Red Cross does not contain a massive bureaucracy.

392 is living in the magical fantasy land of John Locke and Adam Smith. Maybe one day i can reach the end of the rainbow find my pot of gold and be in this land also.



[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : l]

10/5/2007 11:43:38 AM

Quote :

"because natural selection, the very fabric of life, would constantly need to violate this alleged right some things can live, others die, but to "guarantee" the provisions needed for life is biologically irresponsible"

With sentience comes the ability to no longer have your life governed by nature. That's why being sentient is special.

Quote :

"even if it's denied, you still have it (killing or imprisoning me doesn't remove my right to life or liberty, respectively) "

I misspoke. Rights exist no matter what. But the purpose of government is to protect the exercise of these rights, by the admission of anyone on this board who falls short of being a total anarchist, yourself included. Why is the government only permitted to protect people from each other?

10/5/2007 5:53:25 PM

Quote :

"With sentience comes the ability to no longer have your life governed by nature. That's why being sentient is special."

I think a lot of individuals in our society have a long way to go before they can say they are no longer governed by nature.

10/5/2007 6:04:43 PM

By the simple fact that they are in a society, they have more control over it -- or at least participate in a collective action having more control over it -- than any other species.

10/5/2007 6:37:03 PM

^

Quote :

"With sentience comes the responsibility to maintain humility about the fact that life can't exist without being governed by nature, despite the illusion of nature's non-necessity and the temptation to become gods in the face of overwhelming technological advances. That's why being sentient is dangerous."

there

I fixed it for you

Quote :

"Why is the government only permitted to protect people from each other?"

because that's only fair? and government protection isn't opt-out?


[Edited on October 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2007 8:50:42 PM

Quote :

"That's why being sentient is dangerous."

I agree that sentience is dangerous for a variety of reasons, most of them leading me to the conclusion that government is a very good thing. None of my reasons, however, have to do with this off-topic rant about playing God you're working on.

Besides, none of that changes the fact that sentience sets us apart from the rest of nature. Even if it just means we have special threats, risks, responsibilities, what have you, it still means we're special.

That's why we seek to treat ourselves better than animals treat each other.

Quote :

"because that's only fair?"

How do you figure?

We have the ability to protect large numbers of people from threats that come from non-human factors; what is it about their being non-human that means government isn't allowed to work against them?

A person can be killed by a person with a gun, or by malnutrition, or by tuberculosis. Why is it OK for the government to coerce people to give it money to pay for a response to the first but not the second or third?

10/5/2007 9:02:17 PM

Quote :

"On the flip side I think their are some circumstances where the gov't has the civic duty to act as a safety net; not as a lifeline as so many US citizens use it as leeching off the system their entire lives. With that thought I do not buy the whole "let charities" deal with helping people. I do not think charities as a whole are not efficient enough or are capable of acquiring the necessary resources to help those in need during acute situation of unemployment or devastating life situation."

The gov't has NO obligation to act as a safety net for anyone. People should know that the gov't has a certain role; securing my finances with the money of others isn't one of them.

And as far as the notion that charities aren't efficient? HA. You call the GOVERNMENT efficient? It wastes 50% of every fucking dollar it takes in! How much more inefficient can it get? Charities HAVE to be efficient, because they don't have an endless supply of guaranteed money, nor can they just print up more when it gets low. Come on, man, think!

Quote :

"Healthcare just needs to be reformed."

No, the gov't just needs to get its hands OUT of healthcare, then the costs will go down. When you've got LAWYERS making laws about healthcare that allow LAWYERS to sue any doctor at the drop of a hat, it shouldn't come as a surprise that healthcare costs have spiraled out of control..

Quote :

"Health ins. however needs some tweaking."

if the gov't didn't inflate the cost of healthcare by mucking it up, then there would be no need for insurance for the average joe, because healthcare wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

Quote :

"Yes physicians mark up the cost of procedures and office visits, but rarely are they paid the actual amount they charge."

don't you think that's the reason they mark up the cost in the first place? It's like a tax, really. The gov't says "insurance doesn't have to pay what it says it will pay. it can make up a figure." Doctors then figure out what they need to get paid, and then mark it up by the amount they know the insurance company will bullshit them out of. Once again, the problem isn't healthcare, and it isn't the affordability of insurance; the problem is insurance, and yet somehow the solution is MORE INSURANCE? wtf, mate!

Quote :

"THey also penalize you for using/getting new equipment."

What? The gov't stifling innovation and the best care possible? What do people think will happen when the gov't actually RUNS THE WHOLE THING?

Quote :

"medical care, sufficient to stave off illness."

sounds good to me. where does insurance fit into all of this? where does people using the emergency room as primary care when they can afford actually primary care fit into all of this?

Quote :

"I am pretty sure they did not have health insurance or even a readily available system of health care back when the founding fathers wrote the declaration of independence. Therefore your statement is void. "

Give me a break. The founding fathers were NOT as short-sighted when they wrote the Constitution as you want to make them out to be.

Quote :

"You are pretty retarted if you think people would hand over a bunch more money to charities if income tax was eliminated."

Think of how many people currently donate to charities. Now, think of how much more they would be able to donate to charities if they didn't have so much of their money stolen from them by a wasteful, inefficient gov't. Will every person donate? Of course not; but those who do will be more able to give, and the dollars they give will be used more efficiently, because they are being given to agencies and people who actually care about the cause, and not to people who are just there to collect a paycheck and like the benefits.

Quote :

"With sentience comes the ability to no longer have your life governed by nature. That's why being sentient is special."

you are very fucking conceited if you think that human beings are the only sentient beings on this planet.

10/5/2007 10:59:44 PM

Quote :

"Think of how many people currently donate to charities. Now, think of how much more they would be able to donate to charities if they didn't have so much of their money stolen from them by a wasteful, inefficient gov't."

There has to be some research out there that demonstrates one way or the other whether there's actually any correlation between tax rate and per capita donations to charity, and I have a feeling that once I find it, it's gonna paint you to be a damn fool.

Quote :

"where does insurance fit into all of this? where does people using the emergency room as primary care when they can afford actually primary care fit into all of this?"

Private insurance goes away because it repeatedly demonstrates itself to cost more and provide less in the way of overall benefit than the single-payer systems in other countries do. At some point whether or not health care is a right becomes a secondary issue to the fact that we are, on the whole, spending more to get less than countries with better systems.

Quote :

"you are very fucking conceited if you think that human beings are the only sentient beings on this planet."

You gonna try to sell me some bullshit about chimps, bonobos, and dolphins? Please.

10/5/2007 11:11:28 PM

Quote :

"There has to be some research out there that demonstrates one way or the other whether there's actually any correlation between tax rate and per capita donations to charity, and I have a feeling that once I find it, it's gonna paint you to be a damn fool."

nice. now find it. and I will then tear it to shreds.

Quote :

"Private insurance goes away because it repeatedly demonstrates itself to cost more and provide less in the way of overall benefit than the single-payer systems in other countries do."

Oh, you mean like the added benefit of wasting 50% of every dollar spent? Or is that the added benefit of stifling innovation and better care? Or maybe it's the added benefit of the government irrationally fucking with reimbursement rates and allowing insurance companies to pay less than what they say they will pay? Is that it?

Quote :

"At some point whether or not health care is a right becomes a secondary issue to the fact that we are, on the whole, spending more to get less than countries with better systems."

Oh, so at some point you are perfectly willing to say "fuck the Constitution, let's fuck up healthcare even more by instituting more of the problem into it: GOVERNMENT."

Quote :

"You gonna try to sell me some bullshit about chimps, bonobos, and dolphins? Please."

I'm not the one who came in here and made an enormous claim with absolutely no shred of proof to support it, so don't blame me for calling you out on it. Prove that I am sentient. Prove what sentience is and how one can test for it. Then, and only then, will I begin to allow you to claim that humans are the only sentient beings on this planet.

10/5/2007 11:51:46 PM

Quote :

"nice. now find it."

I tried earlier, but I've yet to find a search that yields anything other than sites about tax laws regarding charitable organizations.

As it stands, I'm not sure how your guess about what people would do is any more valid than mine, in the meantime.

Quote :

"Oh, you mean like..."

I mean like a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, lower incidents of easily preventable diseases, you know, in general, the stuff that countries with single payer plans have that we don't.

Quote :

" Oh, so at some point you are perfectly willing to say "fuck the Constitution, let's fuck up healthcare even more by instituting more of the problem into it: GOVERNMENT.""

I'm not aware of the part of the Constitution that keeps government out of healthcare.

And you can claim we'd fuck it up all you want, the evidence in every industrialized country that has followed the government route (which is to say, at this point, pretty much all of them PERIOD) indicates that it will lead to lower overall cost to the nation with greater overall returns.

Quote :

"Prove what sentience is"

What in the sweet blue fuck does this even mean? This abortion of a command alone is making me want to abandon discussion of the matter with you.

10/6/2007 12:05:03 AM

Quote :

"The way to better, cheaper healthcare: Don't make it a human right By Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University FAIRFAX, VA. – Everyone complains about the rising cost of healthcare. And now is the season when politicians and pundits propose solutions. Unfortunately, too many of these proposals spring from the wrongheaded notion that healthcare is, as a recent New York Times letter-writer asserted, "a human right and a universal entitlement." Sounds noble. But not everything that is highly desirable is a right. Most rights simply oblige us to respect one another's freedoms; they do not oblige us to pay for others to exercise these freedoms. Respecting rights such as freedom of speech and of worship does not impose huge demands upon taxpayers. Healthcare, although highly desirable, differs fundamentally from these rights. Because providing healthcare takes scarce resources, offering it free at the point of delivery would raise its cost and reduce its availability. To see why, imagine if government tried to supply food as a universally available "right." To satisfy this right, government would raise taxes to meet all anticipated food needs. Store shelves across the land would then be stocked. Citizens would have the right to enter these storehouses to get "free" food. Does anyone believe that such a system would effectively supply food? It's clear that with free access to food, too many people would take too much food, leaving many others with no food at all. Government would soon realize that food storehouses are emptying faster than expected. In response, it might hike taxes even higher to produce more food - raising the price that society pays for nutrition. Stocking stores with more food, though, won't solve the problem. With food free at the point of delivery, consumers would take all that they can carry. People would quickly learn that if they don't grab as much food as possible today, the store might run out of the foods that their families need tomorrow. This creates a vicious cycle of moral hazard that unwittingly pits neighbor against neighbor. Eventually, to avoid spending impossibly large chunks of society's resources producing food, government would start restricting access to it. Bureaucrats would enforce rations, such as "two gallons of milk per family per week." There might be exceptions for those with special needs, but most of us would be allowed to take only those foods that officials decide we need. Food would be a universal entitlement in name only. In practice, it would be strictly limited by government rules. Of course, by keeping what food it does supply "free," government might ensure that at least basic foodstuffs are available to everyone as a right. And maybe this is the sort of outcome that universal healthcare advocates have in mind: Only essential care is a right to be enjoyed by everyone free of charge. The problem is that notions of "essential care" are vague. Is medical care essential if doctors say it might improve by 50 percent an 80-year-old's chances of living an additional year? What about care that improves by 10 percent a 25-year-old's chances of living an additional 50 years? Such questions are wickedly difficult to answer. Despite these difficulties, many Americans demand that government do more to guarantee access to healthcare. Although their concern is understandable, those who make such demands forget that government intervention itself is a major cause of today's high and rising healthcare costs. Indeed, this intervention has created a situation akin to what would happen if government supplied our food for "free." Medicare, Medicaid, and tax-deductibility of employer-provided health insurance created a system in which patients at the point of delivery now pay only a small fraction of their medical bills out of pocket. This situation leads to monstrously inefficient consumption of healthcare. Some people consume too much, while many others with more pressing needs do without. Because the wasteful consumption caused by heavily subsidized access drives up healthcare costs, taxpayers must pay more and more to fund Medicare and Medicaid, while private insurers must continually raise premiums. The sad and perverse result is that increasing numbers of people go without health insurance. The solution is less, not more, government involvement in healthcare. Market forces have consistently lowered the cost and improved the quality and accessibility of food - which is at least as important to human survival as is healthcare. There's no reason markets can't do the same for healthcare. It's ironic but true: Only by abandoning attempts to provide healthcare as a "right" that's paid for largely by others will we enjoy surer access to it."

10/6/2007 12:13:11 AM

Quote :

"I mean like a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, lower incidents of easily preventable diseases, you know, in general, the stuff that countries with single payer plans have that we don't. "

Do you have any evidence that it is the single-payer system in these countries that leads to these results? I'd be more willing to say that the American culture has an equal role, if not greater, than the absence of detrimental gov't interference in the healthcare industry towards achieving these ends. Sure, it might make sense to note that the system of healthcare should have a huge effect on such statistics, but when you've got a bunch of people who sue McD's for selling them food that the purchaser already knows is unhealthy, then I find it hard to really place blame on a lack of single-payer healthcare. Not to mention the fact that our gov't has already shown a penchant for limiting the effectiveness of healthcare, so it seems improbable that allowing that gov't complete control over the system would make it better.

Quote :

"I'm not aware of the part of the Constitution that keeps government out of healthcare."

I guess you never read the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Quote :

"And you can claim we'd fuck it up all you want, the evidence in every industrialized country that has followed the government route"

And I will state that ANY organization which has already shown itself to be dismissive of innovation and inhibitive of proper care should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE in determining my health care. If every time you passed a certain guy on the street, he bashed your car with a hammer, would you really trust that guy as the valet to park your car, no matter how great all of the valets for the other places seem to be? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Quote :

"What in the sweet blue fuck does this even mean? This abortion of a command alone is making me want to abandon discussion of the matter with you."

Hey, when you can't argue on merits, resort to attacking grammar and spelling. It's much more convincing anyway.

10/6/2007 12:16:15 AM

Quote :

"Do you have any evidence that it is the single-payer system in these countries that leads to these results? I'd be more willing to say that the American culture has an equal role, if not greater, than the absence of detrimental gov't interference in the healthcare industry towards achieving these ends."

We're talking about a 100% correlation here, to say nothing of the massive popularity of these programs in every country that has them. Even conservatives in these countries won't touch universal healthcare.

Yes, American culture does have an impact, but it strikes me as highly improbable that this alone can account for the massive disparity in cost and results.

Quote :

"I guess you never read the 9th and 10th Amendments. "

And you've never read the elastic clause, and we'll go back and forth, and blah de blah de blah. I'd prefer not to get drawn too far off into whether the constitution should be strictly interpreted.

Quote :

"Hey, when you can't argue on merits, resort to attacking grammar and spelling. It's much more convincing anyway."

No, I seriously meant the question. I don't know what "prove what so and so is" means, or even can mean.

10/6/2007 12:59:58 AM

ok, i can see how that sentence is confusing. let me word it correctly: give me a definition of sentience that is testable on any living being

10/6/2007 1:25:06 AM

That's possible depending on what level of sentience you're going for.

10/6/2007 1:32:46 AM

Quote :

"life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

10/6/2007 1:58:42 AM

this is a pretty cool little tool you can use to compare presidential candidates' health care reform stances (unfortunately you can only compare four at a time):

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside.cfm

10/17/2007 2:13:46 PM

How can this even be a question? Of course it's not a right.

10/17/2007 3:08:17 PM