Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

It beggars belief that a nation as powerful as America is, it doesnt have a mechanism in place that will assist the poor and misfortunate

---

It DOES have SEVERAL systems in place that assist the poor and unfortunate.

SSI
SSDI
Numerous Welfare programs at the local, state, and federal levels
Medicare

Just to name a few.

Why SHOULD I have to pay for a family that has more children than it can afford? Why SHOULD I pay for the guy that took 2 cruises last year but didn't bother putting any money into medical insurance? Why SHOULD I pay for people to eat fast food and potato chips and then have gastric bypass surgery?

I have no problem giving a hand up to people who really need it. THOUSANDS of charities do that every single day: Ronald McDonald House; The Salvation Army; United Way; Lutheran Social Services; Catholic Charities; Make-A-Wish Foundation; and hundreds of thousands of churches across the country---and that's just naming a FEW.

What I object to is this: Each paying according to his ability and getting health care according to his need.

WHO determines need? Some beaurocrat in an office who's never been through whatever disease is the problem? Some man behind a desk who's never been faced with an unwanted pregnancy or breast cancer? Some woman who'd never had any experience with erectile dysfunction?

Or will it be the overworked doctors who don't have the time to give more than those in the MOST need--emergencies treated before preventative health care, that sort of thing?

At least with the system now, if you've been a responsible adult, then most of the time you can afford at least SOME form of insurance to help you.

The OTHER option is to just get rid of insurance companies, period, and let people pay out of pocket as they go for medical procedures.

Afternoon Syn,

That is really my point isn't?

I totally agree, you should strive towards supporting yourself and your family in the best way possible to you

But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

I do not advocate "socialist" reform in anyway, what I do want to see a system where by human beings help other human beings

Surely providing fundemental rights of care to all shows a country that cares, that at the moment promotes individuailty at all costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

But why does it have to stop there, why is a country that has the resources to offer care to all, can't or will not do so?

---

Where do those resources come from?

Sure... let's just have the United States collect ALL of the outstanding loans that other countries owe us, who cares if it bankrupts them?

And let's either pull out of Iraq and let the whole Middle East blow up the rest of the world, and let OTHER countries deal with it---or carpet bomb the place, take it over, and tell people in another country how to live their lives.

At the same time, let's pull our charities and helping hands out of OTHER countries, and take care of people at home.

Let's make it so that the rest of the world does as much for the rest of the world as the US does! I mean, without the spending that we have in OTHER countries, we can CERTAINLY help more people at home... and who CARES that other people worse off than those at home are getting desparately needed aid from the US more than other countries? We have to take care of our OWN people---let other people take care of the rest of the world!

/sarcasm off.

Seriously--it's MY taxes that would be increased to pay for UHC. Not the poor guy who would benefit from it. Not the rich guy that can get whatever health care he wants anyway. The Middle Class.

And anyone that tells you that a UHC system wouldn't cause a raise in taxes is way more optimistic about the US than I am.

Love your sarcasm Synnen! :)

Look, The US is at the top right now and your argument about helping people at home first before aborad was echoed around the chambers of whitehall in London when we had the empire

The concern was this, if you don't help your fellow man in all races and creeds then they in turn will not help you

Don't be fooled as to why Iraq and Afghanstan are at the forefront right now - Iraq is our mess, afghan yours, and TOGETHER we are fighting our way through it.

At the same time, trade routes will be set up that will help your people as well mine, and therefore increase the tax pot

My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?

Or would you judge whether the way the person was dressed to whether the dollar was spent?

It has NOTHING to do with the way they are dressed.

If someone collapsed on my doorstep, I'd call 911.

If they were coherent enough to tell me what they needed, I would attempt to help.

I am NOT, however, opening up a soup kitchen from my front porch.

There's a line--and the line is usually drawn at "helping those who help themselves".

Would I pay for chemo for a lung cancer patient that refuses to quit smoking? Nope.

See... I GIVE to those charities. United Way comes out of my paycheck, the Salvation Army gets my time, the homeless shelters and women's abuse shelters in my area get my donations of food and clothing and soap and toothbrushes.

I would like to think that MOST Americans give to those less fortunate.

There's a line, though, between helping others and supporting others.

Is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ? I call it pocket picking. I'm sure Synn would gladly help someone on her own .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

is compulsorary and mandatory benevolence a virtue ?

---

For a president who's for mandatory voluntary service it would be. Hey, didn't they used to call that slavery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Where do those resources come from?

---

Hello again, Steve:

If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If what you said earlier is true, about nobody going without health care today, then we ALREADY are spending the resources necessary, and it's just a matter of managing those resources better. No?

---

That depends on what "managing those resources" means to you.

Managing resourses is like how the S.S. trust fund is managed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Love your sarcasm Synnen!! :)


My question stands to you - If a fellow american collapsed on your doorstep and all you had to do was spend a dollar to save his life - would you spend it?

---

Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Of course I would, and do more - that is as an INDIVIDUAL acting, not the government.

Those who believe in UHC may wait for the government to tax them $3, spend $2 on bureacratic costs , to have a government agent tell that individual that just collapsed that they can wait in line to see the government doctor, or have some US NICE equivalent tell them that they are too old to qualify for that $1. ;)


G&P

---

I think it's interesting when people make things up. With UHC you can't be to old for healthcare.

And congrats on bringing up waiting lists.

However, did you know waiting lists in other industrialized countries are almost always for elective surgeries and procedures. No country has a waiting list for emergency procedures, and virtually no country has waiting lists for primary care visits.

And we already have waiting lists in America, you haven't noticed?

It often takes months to get an appointment with specialists and even primary care physicians, especially if you are a new patient to that physician. I'd like to see you try and go see a specialist within the hour. Oh wait you can't.

Evening Inthbox,

Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?

Are those people who have a low income exercising their ability to get FREE birth control? Oh... we can't limit how many kids people have based on their income, you say? Yet we should still PAY for them to be able to have as many kids as they like?

It comes down to this: Every single person out there makes choices. Sometimes the choices are pretty crappy, and it's choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea---but it's still a choice.

Making the choice to raise your child when you can't feed yourself shouldn't qualify you for free health care.

Making the choice to smoke after being diagnosed with cancer or emphasema shouldn't qualify you for free health care. (These people, by the way, could AFFORD health care if they gave up their addiction).

Making the choice to not finish high school and therefore ending up with a lower paying job shouldn't qualify you for automatic state help.

YES, there are people out there who truly have tried everything they could to better themselves--those people deserve to be the ones benefitting from Medicare and Welfare programs.

Most of the people who rely on those programs, though, are people who made a CHOICE that put them there.

I'm refusing to pay for other people's bad choices.

Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Evening Inthbox,

Regardless of who controls an organistation, there will be bureacratic costs.

Waiting lists as sgt states are part and parcel of the systems we have available today in any industrial country.

Hospitals will still compete with each, charitable donations will still occur to those that seek it.

Doctors and specialists will still operate as they do today.

The only single difference is those who are misfortunate enough not to be able to receive healthcare will do so

And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

Just because you can't afford healthcare does not mean you are not deseving of it, I am sure there are numerous people who work and work hard on very low income, why shouldn't they receive the care just because they do the work nobody else wants to but still contributes towards the economy as a whole?

---

This is NOT ABOUT who deserves healthcare but how it is delivered. Is a government controlled healthcare system really better? Really more cost effective?
We have government run healthcare here in the US :

VA

19 deaths at VA traced to poor care - Health care- msnbc.com

VA Faces Questions Over Tainted Colonoscopies - US News and World Report

The VA's Data Breach – Tips for Veterans

Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


We have Medicare and Medicare part d - both of which have cost much more than predicted.


Speaking of government health care - what is UK's cancer survival rate vs the US?
The Lancet [ England's own ]

Europe's Cancer Survival Is Up, But UK Lagging, New Study

Quote:

---

And if the price is a small percentage of a population will get something for nothing, then isn't it worth the payment.

---

See the results of "cash for clunkers" [cost more than advertised and lasted shorter than predicted ] - sad thing it cost the American taxpayor.



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Yup it's a great system you guys have: Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance - The Denver Post
I'm so glad I live where I do and I can help my fellow citizen.

---

I could PROBABLY find a case for the ridiculous for how stupid government run health care systems are, too.

Saw that article today, rolled my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Ask anybody on Medicaid or even Medicare what percent of doctors or specialists will see them.


G&P

---

Now you see we don't have that problem here, any doctor will see you, but you may not be able to get him to bulk bill you, that is optional on his part, but you can claim back the benefit but not the gap in fee. The decision not to see a particular doctor is left to the patient. Most specialists don't bulk bill.

I think you might understand that there is a difference in philosophy in operation, freedom of choice is maintained; choice of health coverage and choice of doctor, no one dictates what doctor you can see but how you pay is up to you. You can pay through the tax system, you can pay through insurance cover or you can run the gauntlet and pay in cash but gaming the system isn't allowed either way.

The English Healthcare system has has one major flaw.

A total lack of competition.

Since its concenption, you have little choice available to, normally you see the GP in your local town, then he refers you to the local hospital

Specialised units obviously exist but you don't go there until after the former

This is starting to change where you can nominate where you choose to be seen, which leaves it open to people to make an informed judgment of what and where

This will increase competition in the system providing better care in the future

As regards Englands cancer rate, it is largely due to people in this country not going to to see a doctor until it is too late

Speaking on my part, when a lump the size of a walnut appeared on top of my skin, it still took me 3 weeks of denial before I saw a Doctor

Once I did, I had an appointment at the Hospital 4 days later, examined, with the lump removed above my skin there and then

I was then booked into an appointmnet for surgery the following week

Regular checks since then and all is clear with the squamous skin cancer

Taking my example to yourselves in america.

This is how it would have played out:

I have been self empoyed for several years, the business was going great

Until my exwife and I decided that we had enough of her ( :) ) and we divorced, which left me slightly broke to say the least but that's a different story

I then has a serious of credit card fraud committed against my several internet sites, all of which amounted to over $60k which severerly effected my cashflow and as such I had to close all but one company down.

This effected my ability to pay for the basics of rent and food for almost a year while I rectified the situation

So in this circumstance if I was in america, I would probably not be able to afford medical insurance

SO, after some 20 years of employment and four more of self employed, the one and only time I need serious medical care and I would not be able to get it

Is that a fair system?