new federal health care law designed to increase health insurance coverage is ruining it for some

[markabilly]

seems the new law is hurting people and causing cancellations of health insurance coverage.....Thanks all you democrats and republicans, we needed that "reform"..... :rolleyes:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-CanceledPolicy_08bus.ART.State.Edition1.26bb3e6.ht ml



The Alcantaras now plan to join the Texas High Risk Insurance Pool. The plans available range from a $2,500 deductible with $1,025 monthly premium to a $7,000 deductible with a $662 monthly premium. Jill Alcantara acknowledges that's expensive.



expensive ????? :eek:

[Eki]

I think making business and profit from peoples' health problems is unethical. IMO health care and health insurances should be non-profit.


"We have recently heard reports that some insurers are making decisions about participation in particular markets based on the effect of these requirements," Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. secretary of health and human services, said in a statement. "It is premature for insurers to make business decisions about participation in particular markets based on rules that have yet to be published, or to apply for exemptions to rules that have not yet been drafted."

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think making business and profit from peoples' health problems is unethical. IMO health care and health insurances should be non-profit.

So the Doctors are unethical to want a pay check? How about the pharmaceutical and medical supply manufacturers? They not allowed to make money?

Careful now Eki, it is a VERY slippery slope you can be on. I agree there is a role for public health insurance, but I can tell you as someone who lives in a nation where public healthcare is the ONLY option, we are going broke as they jack up taxes to pay for less and less procedures every year......

[Mark]

Which is why it's wrong it put those things in the hands of private companies with profit motive. The only fair way IMO is a charge on everyone based on income. Kind of like a nationwide insurance scheme, you could call it "National Insurance" perhaps...

[Eki]

So the Doctors are unethical to want a pay check?

Of course not. Pay check is not profit. It's compensation for your work. Firemen, policemen and professional military get paychecks too, although their work is non-profit. Non-profit means that no money is skimmed from the top by shareholders or other investors/owners.



How about the pharmaceutical and medical supply manufacturers? They not allowed to make money?
Within reason to cover their costs.

[anthonyvop]

I think making business and profit from peoples' health problems is unethical.

Why?
I believe you are 100% wrong but I am curious as to why you think that.

[anthonyvop]

Which is why it's wrong it put those things in the hands of private companies with profit motive. The only fair way IMO is a charge on everyone based on income. Kind of like a nationwide insurance scheme, you could call it "National Insurance" perhaps...

Through all the debate about health care I have yet to have anyone explain to me how Health care is a right.

[Eki]

Why?
I believe you are 100% wrong but I am curious as to why you think that.
IMO it uncomfortably resembles extortion that you must pay extra to get treatment if you're sick so that some one else can make more money. "You're dying? What, you don't have money? Drop dead then."

[Eki]

Through all the debate about health care I have yet to have anyone explain to me how Health care is a right.
You have been explained plenty of times. You just don't get it. There's a difference between not have been explained and not understood you know.

[janvanvurpa]

Through all the debate about health care I have yet to have anyone explain to me how Health care is a right.


A Right is anything a sufficient majority of people decide is a right, presuming of course that that right does not impose a burden on others without justifiable reason...

Amazingly simple, really


It never ceases to amaze me that you and other like you have no idea of the basics of living in a society of people...

Must have been a real jungle where you grew up to leave you so bereft of knowledge of how this country works...

Therefore we have to conclude you are just pretending you don't know how rights are identified and instituted...
Therefore further we conclude that you are, as we've seen so often before, you are either a unrepentant troll, or somebody pretending to be whatever it is you are pretending to be..

[anthonyvop]

You have been explained plenty of times. You just don't get it. There's a difference between not have been explained and not understood you know.

It has been explained? Where? When? i never saw it.

indulge me.

[anthonyvop]

A Right is anything a sufficient majority of people decide is a right, presuming of course that that right does not impose a burden on others without justifiable reason...
..

That is a right? Mob Rule?

What is a justifiable reason?

The Nazis had a justifiable reason in their minds to round up and exterminated the Jews so........

[Eki]

It has been explained? Where? When? i never saw it.

indulge me.
You just proved my point.

[anthonyvop]

You just proved my point.

And what point is that?

the fact you cannot give a justification of Healthcare being a right?

[Eki]

And what point is that?

the fact you cannot give a justification of Healthcare being a right?
No, that you wouldn't understand or recognize an explanation for healthcare being a right even if it hit you in the face.

[anthonyvop]

No, that you wouldn't understand or recognize an explanation for healthcare being a right even if it hit you in the face.

How can it hit me in the face is that there is no right to healthcare.

[Eki]

How can it hit me in the face is that there is no right to healthcare.
Exactly, there isn't now everywhere, but there should be a right to healthcare for everyone everywhere. Then you could get treatment if anything hit you in the face.

[anthonyvop]

but there should be a right to healthcare for everyone everywhere.


Why?

[race aficionado]

Why?

Why not?

[anthonyvop]

Why not?

Because it infringes on the rights of others!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because it infringes on the rights of others!!!

Sure it does...........

[Eki]

Because it infringes on the rights of others!!!
If those others get sick or face some other misfortune, it infringes on the rights of others too. We are not alone in this world.

[anthonyvop]

Sure it does...........


it is easy to be generous with other people's money ain't it?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

it is easy to be generous with other people's money ain't it?

What? Like the managers of the health insurance companies are?

[janvanvurpa]

Because it infringes on the rights of others!!!


Does Police being paid for by everybody infringe on the rights of others?
Does Fire Departments being paid for by everybody infringe on others?
Does the roads and highways YOU use being paid for by everybody.....
water, sewer?
Sidwalks?
Weather service?
All those things infringe on the rights of others?


What it seems like is you don't want to pay a share in what it takes to run a modern society,but you want the above benefits and you don't want to pay for anything more on some self-righteous theoretical ideal...

Since this entire country was built as a co-operative enterprise, you want to coast on the societal infrastructure paid for by the whole of the population and whine like a stuck pig at sharing some of the cost of running a modern consumer capitalist State, one item of which is a healthy population...
Another item is an educated population.

Both of those are proven to be less costly than an unhealthy and uneducated population.

And very slick segue into the Nazi name-dropping....just what kind of Nazis did you have in mind? Communist Nazis a or Nazi Communists???

[Mark]

Indeed, you could make exactly the same argument for education.
No money? Well your kids can't go to school then. Why should people without children pay to educate other peoples children?

[Rollo]

seems the new law is hurting people and causing cancellations of health insurance coverage....

expensive ????? :eek:

Good. Let it hurt them, because you don't have the right to complain about it. Because as Mr Vop states:


Through all the debate about health care I have yet to have anyone explain to me how Health care is a right.

It follows that in a completely capitalist society which is endorsed by both Mr Vop and yourself, that there if "there is no right to health care" then you also do not have the right to complain if the price of same goes up because businesses do have the right to maximise profits (and at your expense). Take your business elsewhere, and stop whinging.

[anthonyvop]

What? Like the managers of the health insurance companies are?

It isn't other people's money. It is their money. Big difference

[anthonyvop]

Does Police being paid for by everybody infringe on the rights of others?
Does Fire Departments being paid for by everybody infringe on others?
Does the roads and highways YOU use being paid for by everybody.....
water, sewer?
Sidwalks?
Weather service?
All those things infringe on the rights of others?

The main role of Government is to provide the services that the public sector can't. national defense, Law enforcement, court system, roadways...etc.

The private sector does a great job of providing healthcare and access to it is available to everyone.



What it seems like is you don't want to pay a share in what it takes to run a modern society,but you want the above benefits and you don't want to pay for anything more on some self-righteous theoretical ideal...

Since this entire country was built as a co-operative enterprise,

No it wasn't. It was built by the individual entrepreneur.


you want to coast on the societal infrastructure paid for by the whole of the population and whine like a stuck pig at sharing some of the cost of running a modern consumer capitalist State, one item of which is a healthy population...
Another item is an educated population.

Both of those are proven to be less costly than an unhealthy and uneducated population.

Funny how you mentioned an educated population.
The Public Education system in the USA is a disaster and a glaring example of why the Government fails at anything that can be provided by the private sector. More of our Tax dollars are spent and yet our kids get worse.
When will people wake up?



And very slick segue into the Nazi name-dropping....just what kind of Nazis did you have in mind? Communist Nazis a or Nazi Communists???
I misspoke. I meant Fascist!

[markabilly]

The main role of Government is to provide the services that the public sector can't. national defense, Law enforcement, court system, roadways...etc.

The private sector does a great job of providing healthcare and access to it is available to everyone.




No it wasn't. It was built by the individual entrepreneur.



Funny how you mentioned an educated population.
The Public Education system in the USA is a disaster and a glaring example of why the Government fails at anything that can be provided by the private sector. More of our Tax dollars are spent and yet our kids get worse.
When will people wake up?



I misspoke. I meant Fascist!


Adam Smith, the original spokesperson for capitalism, seemed to favor the progressive tax..... :eek:


But I agree!!!!!

People who can not afford health care, should not get it. Let them eat bread, doctor themselves or die in the streets.

People who can not afford to pay for private schools, should not get an education for free at the taxpayer expense. Let them learn to read on their own or be ignorant.

Indeed, what is all this socialist, communist talk of national defense, court system, roadways and so forth?? If people can not afford to pay for private guards, let them defend themselves, or die on the streets......

Roads, why should I be forced to pay for a road so old vpop can drive to his house and to and from work? Let him build it himself......and if he can not afford it, then let him sit at home and eat bread....

[Eki]

The main role of Government is to provide the services that the public sector can't. national defense, Law enforcement, court system, roadways...etc.
Sure private companies could provide national defense, law enforcement, court system, roadways etc. if you'd pay them, and don't mind if the law isn't the same for everyone, the one who pays more wins the lawsuit, the military can switch to the enemy's side if they pay more and you have to stop at every road to pay road toll. Private health care have similar flaws: those with more money can have better treatment or even have access to treatment, they check your wallet, insurance and credit before they check your pulse, etc.

[schmenke]

Indeed, you could make exactly the same argument for education.
No money? Well your kids can't go to school then. Why should people without children pay to educate other peoples children?

It's not about educating someone else's children. It's about paying to ensure an educated society. An educated society, like a healthy society, is happy and prosperous. Everyone benefits.
This point is missed in the U.S. health care debate. It's not about the individual's rights, but about ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Unfortunately, the mindset in the U.S. is very individualistic; everyone is looking out for themselves. So a proposal to impose a change that benefits society as a whole is construed as an infringement on individual rights.

[ArrowsFA1]

The private sector does a great job of providing healthcare and access to it is available to everyone.
It's available to those who can afford it, and those who can afford more insurance get better heathcare for longer. It's not available or accessible to those who cannot afford to pay.

Now if you were talking about a TV set (just as an example) that would be fine IMHO. The private sector does a great job of manufacturing and selling TV's. A TV is "available to everyone" in the shop window. There are many different ones you can have depending on your budget, or availability of credit.

Healthcare is not a consumer product.

[Eki]

It's not about educating someone else's children. It's about paying to ensure an educated society. An educated society, like a healthy society, is happy and prosperous. Everyone benefits.
This point is missed in the U.S. health care debate. It's not about the individual's rights, but about ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Unfortunately, the mindset in the U.S. is very individualistic; everyone is looking out for themselves. So a proposal to impose a change that benefits society as a whole is construed as an infringement on individual rights.
True. Healthy people are generally better workforce and taxpayers than sick people. So are educated and skilled people generally better workforce and taxpayers than uneducated and unskilled people.

[janvanvurpa]

The main role of Government is to provide the services that the public sector can't. national defense, Law enforcement, court system, roadways...etc.

The private sector does a great job of providing healthcare and access to it is available to everyone.

Those two statements in one sentance are incompatible.
The law mandates that people cannot be "turned away"...at Emergency wards

The REALITY--ever heard of that Vop?---is that for millions ---a major slice of your countrymen, the care received meets the exact letter of the law and people get the absolute minimal care to stabilise the "situation" and not a band aid more---and only then if you go through idiotic intake procedures...
And then the will and do chase and harass and annoy one for outrageous bills, report you to credit bureaus that you're a dead beat causing piles of knock on problems---all cause you can't afford to pay $480 to be told "Take it easy and get a different hobby", or thousands and thousands for minimal work with charges like: 160 bucks for a 4" x 4" gauze pad...$86 for a suture pack....
Thus you pairing them is a lame attempt to try to lie to other readers here by association.

And just let me state clearly: I have "received" trauma "care" in this country over 5 decades at various times as well as a number of other countries---latest time just in July.
I have had superb care---when I had GOOD insurance coverage.
I have gotten appalling, shamefully slapdash "care"--including NOTHING 2 different times as I lay after an accident with ripped loose anterior cruciate ligament and torn lateral meniscus--fairly major trauma to the knee

I have been blown off for years with what finally (within weeks of having GOOD Insurance coverage) was diagnosed as 2 separate severely crushed discs in the spine (which explains the loss of 4cm in height!) and sent away with a prescription for asprin, essentially disabled. No X-ray, no MRI, No CAT-scan--nothing.

So don't try and spew your filth that "Everybody gets health care", twat.

SOME people in America receive good to excellent health care sometimes..
Some receive worse than the poorest country in Europe, worse than even a foreigner receives walking into a hospital in China.

Don't lie about things so transparently.





No it wasn't. It was built by the individual entrepreneur.


That's so stupid it isn't even worth responding to more than to shovel back more of the crap that you spew out each time you write.




Funny how you mentioned an educated population.
The Public Education system in the USA is a disaster and a glaring example of why the Government fails at anything that can be provided by the private sector. More of our Tax dollars are spent and yet our kids get worse.
When will people wake up?

I have had 2 different Elite private school Seniors work at my small little company on "Senior Year Projects", one from THE snootiest private school in Seattle in '94, the other a few years later from one of the snootiest private schools in New England....both kids knew essentially NOTHING of ANY history, languages, math was poor---indeeed the only thing that distinguished them from ordinary kids in public schools was a cocky delusional belief that they "were getting a better education" than public school kids.
Examples of the brilliance of these "Elite" kids getting "better than public school education":
Q: when was WWII?
A: "in 1960?"
Q: "who did we fight then?"
A: "The English?"
Q: "When was the Vietnam war?"
A: "I don't know"

Your contention that "Government" is doing a poor job of providing a decent broad education again like your barefaced attempt at lying above is a blatant attempt to IMPLY that Private for profit corporate entities could do better....another attempt at lying...
The proof is you claim to have been "involved" in the American corporate structure and look how you show total and thorough ignorance of history--nuance, or details, totally incapable of logic----rigid repetition of words and phrases gleaned from one dark fetid corner of the American political spectrum with nary an original word of phrase....and yet somebody hired you...

Wait!
Were you "educated "--(or did they vainly attempt to) --in PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

POINT MADE!




I misspoke. I meant Fascist!

What kind tho??

[janvanvurpa]

It's not about educating someone else's children. It's about paying to ensure an educated society. An educated society, like a healthy society, is happy and prosperous. Everyone benefits.
This point is missed in the U.S. health care debate. It's not about the individual's rights, but about ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Unfortunately, the mindset in the U.S. is very individualistic; everyone is looking out for themselves. So a proposal to impose a change that benefits society as a whole is construed as an infringement on individual rights.

Excellent point, however i wouldn't use the word "individualistic" to describe the "mindset" of the average American--especially those so resistant to any external ideas.. Indeed I am cautious about using the word mindset since that implies a mind.....

Pointing out to the American Rightie Mouthbreathers the basic International nature of getting up, turning on the lights, having breakfast, taking a dump, a shave and driving to work--INTER-nation much less INTER-state nature of where things come from, how many people involved where all working unseen around the globe and around the country just to allow the simple act of getting up and going to work, usually elicits a puddle of drool on the front of their shirt from them as a response...

They are about as responsive to new information as a damp potato.

[anthonyvop]

Java,

Lets just come to an agreement.

I believe in the Rights of the Individual.
You believe in the Power of the state.

[race aficionado]

Java,

Lets just come to an agreement.

I believe in the Rights of the Individual.
You believe in the Power of the state.

Anthony.
There is also a big gap in what you consider the Rights of the Individual and what others consider the Rights of the Individual.

Both believe in the rights but differ in what the actual rights are.

[anthonyvop]

Anthony.
There is also a big gap in what you consider the Rights of the Individual and what others consider the Rights of the Individual.

Both believe in the rights but differ in what the actual rights are.

The rights of the individual are universal as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another.

[race aficionado]

The rights of the individual are universal as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another.

We are going in circles because we don't have a unified meaning for Rights of the Individual.

Case in point:
I believe in affordable or free healthcare for all - so no one is infringing in my rights if this is implemented.

In your case, you feel that your rights would be infringed because you don't believe in it.

[glauistean]

We are going in circles because we don't have a unified meaning for Rights of the Individual.

Case in point:
I believe in affordable or free healthcare for all - so no one is infringing in my rights if this is implemented.

In your case, you feel that your rights would be infringed because you don't believe in it.
Rights!!!! You are stuck on this friggin word rights. I'll tell you a right from someone in the medical field.

My wifes sister-in-law is suffering from a glioma and was released from the hospital in the US today because she had run out of the necessary days allowed for her condition. She is discharged and may enter again within twenty four hours which you, Tony might care to understand that within that period the person may die. There is already bankruptcy in the family so there is no way the hospital will allow the person in.

I have read your posts and see that you are a person that evokes this mantra of right wing talking points and buzz words.

Tell me. Terry Schiavo was given extraordinary treatment by the press and the president who actually flew from vacation to attend the signing into law a bill to save a person whose brain, particularly the brain stem that covers a myriad of functions was already dead. A colleague, Bill Frist diagnosed her from TV reports he saw. He should have been disbarred as it is unethical to diagnose anyone unless they are present. In addition. Neurology is not his field. He is not qualified to talk/speak on this issue.

Now, as a man with a family I suspect very strongly that you are young and have never encountered life and death situations with family and why it is so necessary to have insurance for all that will last until their dying breath.

Now Tony, why was Terry Schiavo a person in medical terms suffering irreversible unconsciousness with complete loss of brain function seen more worthy and given special treatment when it was not deserved?

Can you tell my wife and her sister- in- law why there is such a disconnect between those that were able to grab the attention of the religious "right" and the "political" right to allow this special treatment to occur.

Anthonyprop, I believe is your name on the forums. Why does conservatism and right wing ideology eliminate so may individuals whilst the opposite is true for the democrats. You lambaste liberals as some sort of vermin yet I can guarantee those like Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly who have absolutely no qualms at ridiculing the ACLU were the first to run to that organization for help when they felt "their" rights were infringed. Not the rights of those damn liberals who want to help everyone and not be so selfish in their ideals that it is only a small leap between their ideals of capitalism that it almost absorbs itself into that of communism.

[Rollo]

The rights of the individual are universal as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another.

Why does health care need to be a right? Please explain that, what's so important that it specifically needs to be a right. You as a nation pay exorbitant fees for the "exercise" of your collective choice to argur about a what is and isn't a right.

The truth is that when you spread insurance risk over the broadest base possible (hence the reason why it's sometimes called National Insurance), then the individual costs per unit falls; so on a per person basis it is cheaper to the end user.
There is also the issue of "economies" of scale at play, at which the factors that cause a producer’s average cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased. Admittedly, this doesn't always line up with the general practice but seeing as the idea of universal health care creates a Natural Monopoly, coupled with the fact that not everyone is actually using the system at once, does then to ameliorate it somewhat.

Plus, although people like to quote perhaps the ulimate conservative Sir Winston Churchill:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Those same people forget that it was him who first publicly declared the idea of universal health care to the members of Royal College of Physicians in London in March '44.
The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

Even if you allow for the "free rider problem"* (look it up you'll learn something), even Churchill realised that allowing dignity to all members in society was a far better outcome than having people excluded from the system because they couldn't afford it.

Or maybe you would prefer that people don't have decent health care, so long as their dignity doesn't impinge on your precious rights:
If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

*The Free Rider Problem. In a civilised and sensible society, we choose to value people 's dignity and are prepared to accept this cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

[race aficionado]

The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.[/i]



Thanks for this Sir Winston Churchill's quote Rollo.
:s mokin:

[markabilly]

this is all too complicated for me. I just want to know why I am being taxed, so that anthonyvop can drive his car down roads that my money helped buy. Nobody gave me any choice, they just took it. :mad:

And all this police protection. If you need police protection, get a guard. I say do away with all the cops, they don't do all that much anyway, just like that worthless public education system you so despise.... :mad:
It is immoral, that my money goes to keep you and all the rest of you members of the genral public, safe at night.

And another thing, a really nasty and disgusting secret that he don't want nobody to know: Mr. Anthonyvop is getting and has gotten medical care from some doctor who was at least partially, if not fully, educated at the public's expense and that doc probably gets a little side revenue off of medicare, just suking on that goverment tit, provided by my tax dollars.....MAN THAT IS SO IMMORAL!!!!!!! :mad:


I agree with you when you say:


I believe in the Rights of the Individual.
You believe in the Power of the state.
it is easy to be generous with other people's money ain't it?


What I want to know is why you are no different than the rest of those government tit freeloaders? :confused:
esp. when you are getting a really big piece of the pie/cake?


You need to practice what you preach, abandon this path of immoral behavior of living off the goverment and start really paying your own way!!!!

AMEN bro and pass the kool aid

[markabilly]

Even if you allow for the "free rider problem"* (look it up you'll learn something), even Churchill realised that allowing dignity to all members in society was a far better outcome than having people excluded from the system because they couldn't afford it.


*The Free Rider Problem. In a civilised and sensible society, we choose to value people 's dignity and are prepared to accept this cost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

I say ban all free riders, make it all equal for everyone. Everyone got to pay their own way.
and as nathonyvop has so rightfully put it, over and over again, it is just plain immoral!!!

So let us start by banning the really big time freeloaders of all those government services, starting with people like vop :rolleyes:

[DexDexter]

It's not about educating someone else's children. It's about paying to ensure an educated society. An educated society, like a healthy society, is happy and prosperous. Everyone benefits.
This point is missed in the U.S. health care debate. It's not about the individual's rights, but about ensuring a healthy and prosperous society.
Unfortunately, the mindset in the U.S. is very individualistic; everyone is looking out for themselves. So a proposal to impose a change that benefits society as a whole is construed as an infringement on individual rights.

I agree and in fact I, and other Finns for example, do exactly that. The result: Number one in Pisa scores year after year. Public health care is never perfect but I, for example, am willing to pay more taxes so that everybody gets treatment. In the end it benefits me as well.

[markabilly]

I agree and in fact I, and other Finns for example, do exactly that. The result: Number one in Pisa scores year after year. Public health care is never perfect but I, for example, am willing to pay more taxes so that everybody gets treatment. In the end it benefits me as well.
and in the USA, the people who benefit the most, both directly and indirectly, are not the ones on the bottom, but the ones at the top.....

people like vop are only fussing about "benefits" "taxes" and "give-aways" as being immoral when it is not their pockets and wallets that are getting the clear and direct benefit, even though they are getting heaps of rewards that are no different.........(so a strong military/police with plenty of folks from the lower classes getting killed to protect me is ok; great medical care as a result of goverment subsidized education and research is great for me, but I do not want to pay for others to get it yadadayadadee)

some call it hypocrisy......me, I just think it is greedy jealousy that someone might be getting a little of something that I want all to myself.

:rolleyes:

[chuck34]

Why does the argument always come down to some form of we have police and fire, so we have to have health care? Why not we have police and fire so we must have TVs for all? Afterall a happy workfoce is a more productive workfoce and TV will make people happy. Or what about free cars? Afterall people have to get to work.

[Eki]

TV will make people happy.
It can also make people unhappy.

In Finland, the life expectancy has increased about 30 years within the last hundred years or so. I don't believe TV had much to do with it.

[janvanvurpa]

It can also make people unhappy.

In Finland, the life expectancy has increased about 30 years within the last hundred years or so. I don't believe TV had much to do with it.

Hej Eki, I see in piccies and vids of spectators at F-Cup rallys that quite a lot of people in Finalnd have increased something around their middle parts within the last 35 years from what I remember.

Looks similar i 'grannlandet till väst'

I do believe that has something to do with TV..


Of course nothing approaching the massive achievements by your average American . The Nation leads the world in this area---by far!

[chuck34]

It can also make people unhappy.

Ok, it's settled then. Since TV can make people unhappy, no one gets a free one provided by the State. Simmilarly, since taking people's money by force to provide health care makes people unhappy, we won't do that either. I knew one of these day's we would agree :)

[Eki]

Ok, it's settled then. Since TV can make people unhappy, no one gets a free one provided by the State. Simmilarly, since taking people's money by force to provide health care makes people unhappy, we won't do that either. I knew one of these day's we would agree :)
But taking away their health care would make them unhealthy and taking away TV won't make them unhealthy.

[Eki]

Hej Eki, I see in piccies and vids of spectators at F-Cup rallys that quite a lot of people in Finalnd have increased something around their middle parts within the last 35 years from what I remember.

It may have more to do with beer. Until 1969, beer was only sold in special liquor stores. Now you can buy beer almost everywhere, including gas stations.

[Rollo]

Why does the argument always come down to some form of we have police and fire, so we have to have health care? Why not we have police and fire so we must have TVs for all? Afterall a happy workfoce is a more productive workfoce and TV will make people happy. Or what about free cars? Afterall people have to get to work.

There are is one broad reason why the police, fire and ambulances are philosophically the same. They are essentially answering insurable risk questions.

The Police service answers the insurable risk question against law, order and crime. The Fire service answers the insurable risk question against fire damage. The Health service answers the insurable risk question against law, order and crime.

Insurance itself has negative self-selection criteria. That is, that the people who are most likely to benefit from it, are also the people most likely to claim expenses from the system.
Because the best statistical sample size is the broadest possible population, it is also true that the best basis for an insurance base is also broadest possible population. Having the broadest possible population pay into the system, lowers individual per unit costs to their most efficient. There is not a broader possible population, than the entire of the population. Hence the reason why in some countries, the payment for health care services is also called National Insurance.

TV’s and Cars are private goods and owned by the individual. A single TV or Car can not be owned or utilised by the general public, whereas the Police, Fire and Health services are either social goods, club goods or private goods (depending on your political and economic outlook) and are consumed by the general public.

[Rollo]

The Health service answers the insurable risk question against law, order and crime.


Does it?
The Health service actually answers the insurable risk question against disease prevention, and general health.

Note: should have been edited at the time, but I've been without internet connection for 3 hours because Telstra had some problem with the entire of NSW.

[markabilly]

There are is one broad reason why the police, fire and ambulances are philosophically the same. They are essentially answering insurable risk questions.

The Police service answers the insurable risk question against law, order and crime. The Fire service answers the insurable risk question against fire damage. The Health service answers the insurable risk question against law, order and crime.

Insurance itself has negative self-selection criteria. That is, that the people who are most likely to benefit from it, are also the people most likely to claim expenses from the system.
Because the best statistical sample size is the broadest possible population, it is also true that the best basis for an insurance base is also broadest possible population. Having the broadest possible population pay into the system, lowers individual per unit costs to their most efficient. There is not a broader possible population, than the entire of the population. Hence the reason why in some countries, the payment for health care services is also called National Insurance.

TV’s and Cars are private goods and owned by the individual. A single TV or Car can not be owned or utilised by the general public, whereas the Police, Fire and Health services are either social goods, club goods or private goods (depending on your political and economic outlook) and are consumed by the general public.


do what????


all i know is that when they surveyed who was the typical violent criminal, that person was a poverty stricken young black male. And when they did a profile of the typical victim of violent crime, it was not some fat cat at the top of the heap. It was a young, poverty stricken black male about the same age group.

as I said before, people at the top profit the most from all the 'immoral " providing of government services and benefits....includes health insurance to keep those workers working hard to keep the economy going.....plus keeping all those doctors in their Mercedes Benz and million dollar homes.....

[glauistean]

Regarding this thread, to date, has me totally and utterly convinced that the outside world is more informed than those like Anthonyprop and the individual named Mark from somewhere or other with the Canadian flag living in the US or North America.
How shameful is it for people like this Prop person to actually deny the assistance to the ill if they do not have insurance. How arrogant of him/her to believe that he/she will never be in the situation that requires them to have to use the services they desperately try to stop from becoming law.

They preach about "prying the gun from my cold dead hands" as if that was their almighty epistle yet they wallow in the selfishness of the greedy and self entitled.

Other people and countries have been through as much and as bad as the US. Not all of them however were callous enough to actually rig wars to suit their agenda. They were able to do this because they are uneducated beyond their own community and are happy to follow the likes of the Palins and Becks who spew lie and vitriol without knowing what is the truth.

It is sad to say that the candidate and his running mate were unable to answer or speak to areas of civic and geography that is common knowledge to the first year student in secondary school around the western world and the developing world. Africa Mrs Palin is a continent. Germany is to the East of the US. Mr McCain. There is a difference between Shi'a and Sunni. Both Muslim but from different countries.

Because of this , it makes me shudder when I read nowadays about what is going on in the US.

Having the audacious temerity to call itself the greatest country in the world is both a testament to pure and absolute propaganda or to use the old adage of Josef Goebbels. If you tell a lie big enough and often enough , soon the people start to believe. From there they are in your hands.

All one has to do is look at that illiterate goon, Jones , talking about burning the quron last week and the idiots that fell for his idiotic trick that he was in fact protesting the building of a mosque near ground zero. One dwarfed into the other and neither was correct.

No organization is talking about building a mosque near ground zero. A community center, yes. Mosque no. Area for prayer, yes. And yes for all religions.

So to those that are so willing to allow the children and the elderly to die because they can't afford insurance, SHAME on You. To those of you, Anthonyprop, send me a private e-mail and I'll offer you a visit to a children's ward in any major hospital anywhere in the country and I will give you the opportunity to select those that you feel have the credentials (paperwork) that allows them to be cared for because they had insurance. All children will be of various races so as to appeal to your sensitivities.

Any child without insurance, I will be allowed to tell the parents in front of all the parents that you, Anthonyprop, is not willing or cares whether your child lives or dies. Blond curly haired six moth old cutie, to a black child suffering from congenital heart failure and can hardly walk to the fourteen year old boy , the star of the high school football team, tell him he is not getting anything because you, AnthonyProp believes you have no right for acquiring medical care because your lazy parents working four jobs between them to put you through school do not have insurance and so you will have to miss the end of the season, your parents will lose their home, cars and you will not finish high school because the medical bill for anterior cruciate ligament damage costs a fortune but AnthonhyProp would not want to have to put his hand in his pocket to do anything to help because you do not have a right.

So there Anthony. Want to come? Anywhere in the continental US. You will be able to see up close and personal everything it is that you believe to be correct. Rest assured, if you go to the burn unit with me I will give you the podium to pick and choose.

Anthony and Mark from O..., I will even allow you to have a baton or whip so you can say link, recht. Afterall, there is no difference in your philosophy.

[Bob Riebe]

I think making business and profit from peoples' health problems is unethical. IMO health care and health insurances should be non-profit.
I actually have to admit, that is a basic, form, I agree with Eki on this, especially as "health costs", and education, are the two leading areas of U.S. society that are increasing at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation.
That usually means someone/s is/are skimming off the top, at a disgusting rate.

People here are leading far, far, far less demaning styles of life with far, far, far smaller chance of dying because of the simple normal dangers of life. (AT the same time dementia, autism, alzheimer's were rare in the past. Does not say much about the status of health care nowadays)

Is mankind trying to play god, the reason so called "health costs" have risen?
Or are those that can simply can, because they are doctosucking their marks dry?

[janvanvurpa]

I actually have to admit, that is a basic, form, I agree with Eki on this, especially as "health costs", and education, are the two leading areas of U.S. society that are increasing at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation.
That usually means someone/s is/are skimming off the top, at a disgusting rate.

People here are leading far, far, far less demaning styles of life with far, far, far smaller chance of dying because of the simple normal dangers of life. (AT the same time dementia, autism, alzheimer's were rare in the past. Does not say much about the status of health care nowadays)

Is mankind trying to play god, the reason so called "health costs" have risen?
Or are those that can simply can, because they are doctors sucking their marks dry?

Report after report says that a massive huge percent of total "health care" costs are expended in two areas: end of life heroics, and premature births--also heroic measures..
And as a kinda new Pappa, I hear that now in USA that upwards of a full 33-35% of births are Cesarean sections---a very expensive surgical procedure and vastly higher than just 25 years ago---oh and should we mention, a very profitable procedure...

[janvanvurpa]

But taking away their health care would make them unhealthy and taking away TV won't make them unhealthy.

But taking away their beer????
That should make the Revolutionary!

[chuck34]

But taking away their health care would make them unhealthy and taking away TV won't make them unhealthy.

Is mental health not part of overall health?

[Eki]

Is mental health not part of overall health?
I don't think anyone would get mentally ill without a TV, but I wouldn't mind if they got with tax money some cheap, maybe second hand TVs for those who can't afford one themselves.

[Rollo]

I actually have to admit, that is a basic, form, I agree with Eki on this, especially as "health costs", and education, are the two leading areas of U.S. society that are increasing at a rate that far exceeds the rate of inflation.
That usually means someone/s is/are skimming off the top, at a disgusting rate.

Is mankind trying to play god, the reason so called "health costs" have risen?
Or are those that can simply can, because they are doctosucking their marks dry?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total. The remaining 15 percent was attributed to public payers that are not saddled with the high cost of product design, medical underwriting and marketing, and that therefore spend a far smaller fraction of their total spending on administration.

If you have lots of players in a market, it leads to duplication of administration and increased costs of marketing which would not even exist in a single payer/single delivered system.

I'm sure that to some degree that there is a bit of "doctosucking" but more likely is management charging more to skim profits because they can.

If everyone is doing it, then supply curve for the system shifts to the left and a new and higher equlibrium price is set. Remember, the forces of supply and demand are only an efficient mechanism for determining price, not the outcomes as a result of that price.