Quote :

"yeah moron it might be possible, but as the govt provided healthcare per population has increased, so has the costs. lets not forget it was basically govt that mandated HMOs in teh first place in an attempt to lower costs."

this isn't exactly accurate. how much does it cost per person here on average compared to elsewhere (regardless of provider)? quite a bit more, but that's a tort issue.

5/26/2009 2:15:03 PM

Quote :

"Well the leading cause of death is heart disease in the US. Heart disease. THe second leading cause is cancer. And the number 1 cancer? Lung."

What does the current system or the proposed single payer system do to combat heart disease?
Nothing. They are the same plan with a different payer.
What does the current system or the proposed single payer system do to combat smoking?
Nothing. They are the same plan with a different payer.

What does an out of pocket system do to combat heart disease?
It encourages patients to live healthier since it costs more
What does an out of pocket system do to combat smoking?
It encourages patients to quit since it costs more.

As to the link moron posted, things like drug intractions would be much easier to handle with electronic health records. The doc or the pharmacy would see all current medications and any possible known interactions. The problem now is a lack of communication. Not, as the article suggests, gross incompetence.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM. Reason : a]

5/26/2009 2:16:55 PM

I believe I read a journal article that said that adverse drug interaction deaths was less than .5% of treated patients. Damn good odds I think.

Yes EMRs are a great idea to cut down on mistakes. However, Im not sold on national EMRs.

5/26/2009 2:41:37 PM

5/26/2009 2:44:59 PM

I'll lay it out simple: if someone can't pay for lifesaving procedures to save their life, there should still be a guaranteed way to help them live (like an emergency public health money pot), even if they did make bad decisions earlier in life.

People aren't figures or lessons to be taught.

5/26/2009 2:46:11 PM

EMRs are pretty pointless if they cant be accessed real time. I'm not saying that the fed should do it, but if they are to be effective they need to be centralized somehow.

5/26/2009 2:51:21 PM

Well you're problem there is convincing competing hospitals to share records. You'd have to centralize them, but you'd also have to get people to give them up.

5/26/2009 2:55:09 PM

Quote :

"I'll lay it out simple: if someone can't pay for lifesaving procedures to save their life, there should still be a guaranteed way to help them live (like an emergency public health money pot), even if they did make bad decisions earlier in life. "

No, I'll lay it out simple:
On the public level, nothing should be done -- The "way" should be funded solely by the private sector.
The "way" shouldn't be guaranteed. No one has a right to health care, life-saving or otherwise.
On my personal private level, I will only fund the "way" if the health care is for something that's not the persons' fault, or if it's for a close loved one.
No one should be have to pay for anyone else's health care. (not counting dependents)

Quote :

"People aren't figures or lessons to be taught."

What is that supposed to mean? Personal responsibility doesn't come from nowhere -- it comes from willful and intentional efforts by individuals to avoid causing negative consequences from their actions. When such negative consequences are negated by artificial means, individuals no longer have to willfully and intentionally exercise effort to avoid them. Where then, is the personal responsibility? I guess it's possible that you don't even believe in the concept.

Quote :

"EMRs are pretty pointless if they cant be accessed real time. I'm not saying that the fed should do it, but if they are to be effective they need to be centralized somehow."

First of all, they don't need to be centralized to be accessed in real time. Second, and most important, even if they are centralized, they don't need to be onymous.

5/26/2009 3:07:22 PM

It is much easier for the media to attract readers/listeners/viewers by sensationalizing our failures than our successes thus the unstoryworthy facts below are far too often ignored.

Quote :

"Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States. Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer: * Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). * Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians. * More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent). * Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent). Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5] Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8] Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9] Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10] Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12] Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.] Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries. Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times."

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

5/26/2009 3:08:14 PM

just curious, but what exactly would you do with someone who couldn't afford a life-saving procedure, show them that article? read them "freedom and capitalism" and watch them wistfully wait for things to get fixed on their own.

i'm not advocating for single payer or nuthin', just saying, your bright facts don't do shit for people who don't have shit in the way of insurance and can't buy it. i like the personal accounts but i don't want people who can't afford to put the money away to get screwed (like they probably will regardless when this is over).

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:10:51 PM

Quote :

"No one has a right to health care, life-saving or otherwise."

Rofl. In the most prosperous country in the world, we still aren't humane enough to think people have a right to health care or life saving procedures.

5/26/2009 3:12:17 PM

Quote :

"What is that supposed to mean? Personal responsibility doesn't come from nowhere -- it comes from willful and intentional efforts by individuals to avoid causing negative consequences from their actions. When such negative consequences are negated by artificial means, individuals no longer have to willfully and intentionally exercise effort to avoid them. Where then, is the personal responsibility? I guess it's possible that you don't even believe in the concept."

i take it you don't believe in charity?

if you don't believe in some form of basic social safety net, or support for charities (faith based initiatives or otherwise), then you're too far out of the mainstream to really be taken seriously.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:13:50 PM

Quote :

"just curious, but what exactly would you do with someone who couldn't afford a life-saving procedure, show them that article? read them "freedom and capitalism" and watch them wistfully wait for things to get fixed on their own. i'm not advocating for single payer or nuthin', just saying, your bright facts don't do shit for people who don't have shit in the way of insurance and can't buy it. i like the personal accounts but i don't want people who can't afford to put the money away to get screwed (like they probably will regardless when this is over)."

What in that post made you think I am advocating having zero government assistance? There is a difference between helping those who truly need it and trying to subsidize care for the entire nation.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:14:10 PM

sorry, i think i'm assuming too much from the glut of libertarians on here and i'm getting everyone confused with each other. it's all one blob to me really.

5/26/2009 3:18:48 PM

Quote :

"What in that post made you think I am advocating having zero government assistance? There is a difference between helping those who truly need it and trying to subsidize care for the entire nation."

Right. No one here is saying we should deny care to people who cant afford it. There should be a safety net. What we're saying is that a government mandated, one size fits all system is not the solution to the problems of our current system.

5/26/2009 3:24:48 PM

Quote :

"Rofl. In the most prosperous country in the world, we still aren't humane enough to think people have a right to health care or life saving procedures."

What about food and shelter? Should we have the government take over home builders and grocery stores because some people cannot afford food or shelter? Absolutely not, that is why we try (but sometimes go overboard) to provide narrowly-defined, temporary subsidies for the few who are in need rather than scrapping the whole system.

Further, if health care is a right, how do we define that right? Is it a right to basic care or does it encompass such things as in-vitro fertilization? How do we define access? Do we have a right to certain procedures in a given time, say within a few days or months or just a right to the procedures regardless of time? How much health care are we allowed to consumer each year? Do I have a right to hip surgery even if I am expected to die within months? Who makes these decisions?

5/26/2009 3:25:10 PM

Quote :

"Rofl. In the most prosperous country in the world, we still aren't humane enough to think people have a right to health care "

You do not have a right to anything that someone else has to provide against thier will. Its that simple.

Now can we afford to provide basic medical care for everyone in this country? I think so. However, what we publically provide is FAR from basic or even necessary. Why should medicaid cover hair loss pills?

Marko, you never answered my PM.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:29:55 PM

Quote :

"You do not have a right to anything that someone else has to provide against thier will. Its that simple. Now can we afford to provide basic medical care for everyone in this country? I think so."

These two statements conflict each other.

Quote :

"Why should medicaid cover hair loss pills?"

Which state medicaid covers hair loss pills?

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:31:51 PM

Quote :

"You do not have a right to anything that someone else has to provide against thier will. Its that simple. "

this is an argument against any welfare program, you realize that, right?

see, this is why i bring this up. when libertarians use this line to state that redistributive programs (this includes any welfare or social safety net under any definition of the idea) are immoral, there really isn't room for the least of society, unless you're going on inconsistent morals.

i just come on out and admit that there is a common good, but it can be served by a limited (but active) government, more federalist than anti-federalist.

5/26/2009 3:33:29 PM

^^no they dont. You're an idiot.

You dont have a right to something someone else produces.

We can, however, decide to work together to make it available to everyone.

^ wellfare is charity. It has nothing to do with ensuring rights.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:33:40 PM

Quote :

"You dont have a right to something someone else produces. We can, however, decide to work together to make it available to everyone."

trying to get my brain around this...

the first statement is an argument against redistributive programs.

how do we decide then when your vision of the common good takes over from the first viewpoint?

Quote :

"^ wellfare is charity. It has nothing to do with ensuring rights."

govt. "charity" (welfare) is a right if you're at a certain income level. you have the right to take advantage if you meet that level of need. they can't say "you meet the requirements but you smell, go away". it's also redistributive which is prefaced on taking the products of others.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:35:26 PM

Quote :

"^^no they dont. You're an idiot. You dont have a right to something someone else produces. We can, however, decide to work together to make it available to everyone."

The fuck you talking about? You aren't going to get 100% of the people to work together to make anything available, thus we might be able to afford to provide basic medical care for everyone, you'll be forcing someone to provide for it against their will. The two statements conflict.

5/26/2009 3:37:00 PM

i guess your brain doesn't work quite right.

The first statement says a consumer doesn't have the right to a producers product.

The second statement says the producer can decide to give his product to the consumer.

wheres the conflict?

5/26/2009 3:37:31 PM

The second statement doesn't say that at all. At all.

5/26/2009 3:39:39 PM

Quote :

"The second statement says the producer can decide to give his product to the consumer."

this is cut and dry if you're talking private charity, but if you're talking about government welfare, the producer is a nation of people. do you think democratic consensus is enough to make this right? is that the producer deciding to give its product to the consumer?

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:39:55 PM

Quote :

"The fuck you talking about? You aren't going to get 100% of the people to work together to make anything available, thus we might be able to afford to provide basic medical care for everyone, you'll be forcing someone to provide for it against their will. "

No you aren't going to get 100% of people to work together to make anything. Thats why the government exists. But you can get 90% of people to handle their own healthcare and then we can all pitch it to get that last 10% their own healthcare.

I dont get where the fuck in your retard brain you're getting this idea that I'm saying we shouldn't give care to people. Maybe its just that you're really old and have trouble reading the current typeface.

I am not talking about making it so only those who afford it can get care. I'm talking about making it cheaper for those who can afford to pay for it PLUS having the government (tax payers working together) pick up the slack and pay for those who still cant afford it under the new system.

5/26/2009 3:41:53 PM

Quote :

"having the government (tax payers working together) pick up the slack and pay for those who still cant afford it under the new system."

i just realized something. i was referring to this quote which was not from you:

Quote :

"You do not have a right to anything that someone else has to provide against thier will. Its that simple."

that was from eyedrb, not you. you just replied to it taking his side and i was going after you as a proxy. that was unfair. carry on.

now he has to explain how that's not an argument against what you just said in bold.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:46:47 PM

Quote :

"the first statement is an argument against redistributive programs. "

NO the first statement is an arguement against an attitude. And its correct. One does not have a RIGHT to anythign that someone else has to provide against thier will. Do I have a right to food? If so, you will provide food for me whenever I want it. Next, you can argue all day long what is "better for the good of mankind" but you will never get people to always agree, like you said. That is the great thing about charities, you pick yours, ill pick mine and we all get along just fine.

Im advocating getting the govt as much out of healthcare as possible, but everyone should have to contribute in some way. imo

We must also realize there is never going to be a perfect answer. But we must then focus on what will work the best, for the most people, the majority of the time.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:47:04 PM

Quote :

"the producer is a nation of people. do you think democratic consensus is enough to make this right? is that the producer deciding to give its product to the consumer?"

Maybe you're right. Wellfare is a form of gov. enforced charity since it comes from tax payer dollars. The goal i would strive for is to limit it to a safety net for lifesaving and maintanence care instead of the sprawling nightmare that is medicare/caid.

If democratic consensus is not enough than we should rethink EVERYTHING we spend money on.

5/26/2009 3:47:31 PM

Still waiting on you to show where medicaid is paying for hair loss pills eyedr

5/26/2009 3:48:32 PM

Quote :

"One does not have a RIGHT to anythign that someone else has to provide against thier will."

Quote :

"everyone should have to contribute in some way. imo"

what? is that "have to contribute" a suggestion or a requirement?

Quote :

"Maybe you're right. Wellfare is a form of gov. enforced charity since it comes from tax payer dollars. The goal i would strive for is to limit it to a safety net for lifesaving and maintanence care instead of the sprawling nightmare that is medicare/caid."

i wouldn't go as far as to get rid of those programs, but generally i agree. the gov. has no business running industry. it just needs to provide the environment for prosperity, which ranges from decent tax policy to good infrastructure to, when needed, tariffs, but that's another argument altogether.

Quote :

"If democratic consensus is not enough than we should rethink EVERYTHING we spend money on."

i suppose you're right, which is why generally we shouldn't subject everything to a vote and the whims of the people at some random point in history. it's why we have written law and lawmakers. from here we go into an argument about interpretations of the constitution and i'm getting tired of this...

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:49:12 PM

every state pays for hairloss pills hoss. Think creatively and youll get to the answer you seek.

Pink, I think it should be a requirement.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:50:16 PM

Quote :

"every state pays for hairloss pills hoss. Think creatively and youll get to the answer you seek."

No, they don't. Sounds like once again you don't know what you are talking about.

5/26/2009 3:51:34 PM

Quote :

"No, they don't. Sounds like once again you don't know what you are talking about."

Ok, hoss. Ill walk you through it.

Propecia = hairloss pill correct?

5/26/2009 3:53:09 PM

This is just 4 seconds of googling

http://wdh.state.wy.us/healthcarefin/pharmacy/medicaidpharmacy.html

Face it, whatever idea you have in your brain is wrong, so lets start doing some damn research if you're going to keep using the "medicaid shouldn't pay for hair loss" crap ad nauseum.

5/26/2009 3:54:39 PM

Quote :

"Pink, I think it should be a requirement. "

so you think that should be required to give tax dollars which:

Quote :

"someone else has to provide against thier will."

what about people who didn't vote for the guy who won? what if that guy who won is diametrically opposed to everything some portion of the population believes in? should quakers have to pay for militaries?

maybe you should think about the full implications of saying things like

Quote :

""One does not have a RIGHT to anythign that someone else has to provide against thier will.""

before you say them.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ,]

5/26/2009 3:55:15 PM

again failboat, propecia = finasteride. No, maybe I know more than you about this subject bc I actually see it. Try to google again my friend.

Pink, it doesnt have to be tax dollars, or really dollars at all. But one should have to contribute to thier care. Go by a hospital on your way home and look at the outdoor smoking section. I am willing to bet you will find at least one person out there with a portable oxygen tank smoking.

I missed the rest of your post pink. Again, Im against the income tax. Id rather move towards the fairtax where everyone contributes and is treated equally by our govt. I also understand that the govt needs funds to provide services to its citizens. However, these services are pretty defined in teh constitution and healthcare isnt one of them, imo.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 3:59:00 PM

Quote :

"However, these services are pretty defined in teh constitution and healthcare isnt one of them, imo."

Neither are roads. Or any welfare. Or the Air Force. This is why this argument is all going to come back around to Hamilton vs. Jefferson (Hamilton wins every time, duh, we have awesome roads that make us awesome).

Quote :

"Id rather move towards the fairtax where everyone contributes and is treated equally by our govt."

1) everyone doesn't contribute, just those who spend money on new goods

2) pretty much every independent estimate says that thing will have to have its rate set waaaaay higher than Talk Radio's Neil Boortz claims, but if you wanna go with his people's estimates on this, go ahead. I'm sure people who pay no income taxes right now will be thrilled with a regressive new sales tax of between 20-30%

a flat tax actually makes more sense, if you don't want a progressive income tax (which has worked alright when not allowed to get too high on any one group, and this has been true since Ancient Greece no matter how much the right tries to smear it with the whole OMG ITS IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO thing). i might even be persuaded to reduce the tax brackets to like 2 or 3 simple brackets as long as we still have good public services and a military.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 4:05:12 PM

air force? common defense? no?

Id still prefer the fairtax. Right now and under a flat tax you are still only taxing production. We have over 300M in this country and only 140M taxpayers. Of those, about half end up paying all the taxes. So 75M of 300M. At least under a fairtax everyone is treated equally and has to contribute. It pulls the power away from politicians to buy votes and lessens the idea that you will get something for nothing. It will be a lot harder to raise taxes when EVERYONE will feel the effects in someway.

5/26/2009 4:14:02 PM

How many of the 300M should be paying taxes though? I bet the result is much less impressive sounding than 300M. The only thing I could find from wolfram alpha was 61M children, then take away who knows how many retired people and maybe even then some other groups if you want to.

5/26/2009 4:31:02 PM

^^ if preemptive wars fall under "common defense" then health care can fall under "general welfare" too.

5/26/2009 4:39:14 PM

I think preemtive wars could fall under that.

As for general welfare, so would outlawing smoking, drinking, fatty foods, cars, tv, etc. Oh that would never happen, right? Im sure people never thought the govt would tell them what drugs they could take or doctor they could see either. Have a good day moron.

Fail boat, where did you go brotha?

5/26/2009 4:45:04 PM

^ so wait a minute, you mean the constitution is not clear cut in what it actually means? Amazing.

5/26/2009 4:46:41 PM

Quote :

"How many of the 300M should be paying taxes though?"

The FairTax would capture many other avenues like foreign tourists, illegal immigrants, etc.

Most people's tax burden would decrease, but the tax base would increase netting an increase (mainly due to closing loops) in collected taxes.

5/26/2009 5:07:36 PM

not to mention influx of jobs and capital into the country.

5/26/2009 5:10:35 PM

^ I was going to say that but this thread isn't debating FairTax

5/26/2009 5:11:59 PM

good point.

So why didnt any of you guys comment on Hunts post? fail boat, skokiann, moron?

5/26/2009 5:19:51 PM

^ Those are all things we need to keep in mind when reforming our own health system.

Or are you saying things are perfect as they are? There's plenty of room for improvement.

5/26/2009 5:24:54 PM

well said moron. However, I think the record of MORE govt influence in healthcare is enough for me to think why dont we try less for a change.

5/26/2009 5:35:47 PM

Quote :

"So why didnt any of you guys comment on Hunts post? fail boat, skokiann, moron?"

Which one? When a guy starts making points that he thinks are supportive of his argument but are actually supportive of mine, I kinda stop bothering.

5/26/2009 5:41:28 PM