Healthcare is not a right

[Esaias]

[Esaias]

Denmark! Denmark! Socialist utopia! Not quite:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6720701.html

"Politicians in the U.S. like Bernie Sanders praise Denmark for its relative income equality, its free universities, parental leave, subsidized childcare, and national health system. That all sounds pretty good, right?

It is fantastic in theory, except that, in Denmark, the quality of the free education and health care is substandard: They are way down on the PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] educational rankings, have the lowest life expectancy in the region, and the highest rates of death from cancer. And there is broad consensus that the economic model of a public sector and welfare state on this scale is unsustainable. The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by — now dwindling — oil revenues.
...
Denmark has the highest direct and indirect taxes in the world, and you don’t need to be a high earner to make it into the top tax bracket of 56% (to which you must add 25% value-added tax, the highest energy taxes in the world, car import duty of 180%, and so on). How the money is spent is kept deliberately opaque by the authorities. Danes do tend to feel that they get value for money, but we should not overlook the fact that the majority of Danes either work for, or receive benefits from, the welfare state."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

It's because of libtards pushing their agenda. Do you realize, that if that were not the case, the cost of health care would be considerably lower? It's BECAUSE of people who don't pay, that the cost of healthcare has risen so much. In large part, it's due to illegals who abuse the ER systems to get free health care.

We agree! Those who have no insurance are driving up the costs because of being slow paying or unable to pay entirely.

So, that leaves us with needing to find a solution. Because as it stands, if the cost of healthcare continues to climb, so will the cost of insurance. And if the cost of insurance continues to climb, eventually more and more people will be uninsured. And this will only continue to push rates up until NOBODY can afford insurance.

So, what are some solutions?

First, we can go truly free market. This would mean that if someone doesn't have insurance or cold hard cash to pay for services, they are denied services and left to suffer and possibly die. Rather Darwinian if you ask me.

Second, we can find a way to negotiate costs thereby stabilizing the insurance rates and make everyone pay something into the system to cover every citizen. This is essentially a single payer system based on the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid.

Of course, these plans will be very basic. They will cover the costs of routine physicals (maybe one or two a year), routine procedures, injuries, prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and catastrophic illness and/or injury. These are not Cadillac plans. They are basic. They don't cover dental. Nor do they cover elective procedures that are cosmetic like breast enhancement. Nor do I think they should cover gender-reassignment. And as a Christian, I don't think they should cover abortion unless it is to save the life and/or health of the mother. All additional coverage can be supplemental plans offered by one's employer, union, association, or purchased on the open market.

Then go live in another country. This country was not founded on government coddling us or taking care of us, it was founded on freedom. Freedom does NOT mean government interference. As Reagan once so astutely put it, "The most feared words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'".

Expanding Medicare to all isn't "interference". In fact, allowing insurance companies to push for legislation that allows insurance companies to drop sick people, eliminate claims due to pre-existing illness, or to establish caps on coverage to increase their profit margin is interference. For example, if my mother (who was uninsured) were in the America I envision, nothing would prevent her from being thoroughly examined, diagnosed, and treated. Perhaps she would have lived longer. In your twisted vision of America, she died due to lack of coverage. Dead. I can take you to her grave stone. The insurance companies got their big profit that year. We buried my mom. And an estimated 45,000 other Americans died that year from treatable conditions because they didn't have insurance. I think the one's interfering here isn't the government.... it's the insurance industry that is legislating death to increase profits.

You're version of America would be void of:

The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, AMTRAK, public beaches, public busing services, business subsidies, the Census Bureau, the CIA, Federal Student Loans, the Court System, dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, the Department of Energy, the EPA, Farm Subsidies, the FBI, the FCC, the FDA, FEMA, fire departments, food stamps, garbage collection, health care, public housing, the IRS, public landfills, public libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, state & national monuments, public museums, NASA, the National Weather Service, NPR, public parks, PBS, the Peace Corps, police departments, prisons & jails, public schools, Secret Service, sewer systems, snow removal services, Social Security, public street lighting, the Department of Transportation (highways, roads, bridges), USPS, vaccines, veteran health care, Welfare, the White House, the WIC program, and state zoos.

And that's just off the top of my head. Boy, the government really "interferes" doesn't it? lol What I find amazing is that so many rant and rave about "Socialism", blah, blah, blah. But you know what? They enjoy the benefits of these programs every day. Ungrateful, whiney, little brats. That's all they are. Take it all from them and make them pay market price for every possible service, and they'd cry like girls begging for public landfills and garbage collection. States expecting to be hit the hardest by the repeal of Obamacare are bracing for multitudes to begin filing for assistance at the state level, and what is hilarious is....most are within the demographics that voted for Trump! ROFL!!! Maybe you're right, maybe we should just pat them on the back and send them home to suffer and die. After all, it would be fair to give them what they voted for wouldn't it??? But we liberals aren't going to do that. Because while it would be fair.... it wouldn't be just. We'll find a way to care for these Trump voters. Sadly, they'll just take advantage and vote against their best interests yet again next election. But stupid is as stupid does.

You mentioned this being America and our founding. Did you know what our founders had tight regulations on corporate power? Consider that initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions like these:

◾Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
◾Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
◾Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
◾Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
◾Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

Far cry from what you see and hear about today, isn't it???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Denmark! Denmark! Socialist utopia! Not quite:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6720701.html

"Politicians in the U.S. like Bernie Sanders praise Denmark for its relative income equality, its free universities, parental leave, subsidized childcare, and national health system. That all sounds pretty good, right?

It is fantastic in theory, except that, in Denmark, the quality of the free education and health care is substandard: They are way down on the PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] educational rankings, have the lowest life expectancy in the region, and the highest rates of death from cancer. And there is broad consensus that the economic model of a public sector and welfare state on this scale is unsustainable. The Danes’ dirty secret is that its public sector has been propped up by — now dwindling — oil revenues.
...
Denmark has the highest direct and indirect taxes in the world, and you don’t need to be a high earner to make it into the top tax bracket of 56% (to which you must add 25% value-added tax, the highest energy taxes in the world, car import duty of 180%, and so on). How the money is spent is kept deliberately opaque by the authorities. Danes do tend to feel that they get value for money, but we should not overlook the fact that the majority of Danes either work for, or receive benefits from, the welfare state."

Baloney.

Forbes: Denmark World's Best Country for Business
http://www.visitdenmark.com/denmark/...untry-business

By the way, you only offered an opinion piece. lol

[Aquila]

Esaias, have you ever been to Canada or Europe? You should go. No, it's not a utopia. However, we could learn a lot from them. And I believe in the American spirit. I believe that anything they can do... we can do better.

I was with a friend in Canada at a pub and we were just chatting it up. We were talking about my mom's death and he was in total shock that she couldn't even be seen by a specialist because she didn't have insurance. I vented to him a little and he explained how she would have received care in Ontario. We had food and talked a little more about various fishing spots, etc. Then healthcare came up again because of what was on television. David turned to a few of the other patrons and asked, "Who wants a healthcare system like America's?" They stared at him for about a second, and burst into laughter.

Sure, every system has its issues. But we pay more for so much less it's ridiculous. All so CEO's can be billionaires and corporations can rake in record profits. Praise Profit!

[MarieA27]

I hear people constantly complaining, and pushing for universal healthcare, pushing for others to pay for everyone's healthcare. As someone who hates going to the doctor, and doesn't routinely go, and feel that it's more of a burden than a right, I for one, wouldn't like to have this forced upon me.

As far as I know, most of Europe seems to have universal healthcare, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion, aren't most Europeans healthy, at least compared to Americans? If Americans had a healthcare system like countries in Europe, people insurance premiums will rocket, as Americans seems to glut themselves on fatty foods, drive everywhere, does very little exercise, and are generally unhealthy, unlike most Europeans.

Besides, Americans complain about paying 15% in taxes, they would hate it to see 50%-60%+ of their hard earned money, go to these government funded "rights". Americans live to much of a bloated lifestyle to see their comforts go away, even these liberals and progressives that are pushing for this.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We agree! Those who have no insurance are driving up the costs because of being slow paying or unable to pay entirely.

Has the apocalypse occurred? Isn't that one of the signs of the end times?

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, that leaves us with needing to find a solution. Because as it stands, if the cost of healthcare continues to climb, so will the cost of insurance. And if the cost of insurance continues to climb, eventually more and more people will be uninsured. And this will only continue to push rates up until NOBODY can afford insurance.

So, what are some solutions?

First, we can go truly free market. This would mean that if someone doesn't have insurance or cold hard cash to pay for services, they are denied services and left to suffer and possibly die. Rather Darwinian if you ask me.

If people actually paid for their health care, instead of abusing the system, the costs would go down for everyone.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Second, we can find a way to negotiate costs thereby stabilizing the insurance rates and make everyone pay something into the system to cover every citizen. This is essentially a single payer system based on the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid.

And what about those who refuse to be a part of it?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course, these plans will be very basic. They will cover the costs of routine physicals (maybe one or two a year), routine procedures, injuries, prenatal care, delivery, postnatal care, and catastrophic illness and/or injury. These are not Cadillac plans. They are basic. They don't cover dental. Nor do they cover elective procedures that are cosmetic like breast enhancement. Nor do I think they should cover gender-reassignment. And as a Christian, I don't think they should cover abortion unless it is to save the life and/or health of the mother. All additional coverage can be supplemental plans offered by one's employer, union, association, or purchased on the open market.

Again I ask, what if I refuse to be a part of it?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Expanding Medicare to all isn't "interference". In fact, allowing insurance companies to push for legislation that allows insurance companies to drop sick people, eliminate claims due to pre-existing illness, or to establish caps on coverage to increase their profit margin is interference. For example, if my mother (who was uninsured) were in the America I envision, nothing would prevent her from being thoroughly examined, diagnosed, and treated. Perhaps she would have lived longer. In your twisted vision of America, she died due to lack of coverage. Dead. I can take you to her grave stone. The insurance companies got their big profit that year. We buried my mom. And an estimated 45,000 other Americans died that year from treatable conditions because they didn't have insurance. I think the one's interfering here isn't the government.... it's the insurance industry that is legislating death to increase profits.

I'm no fan of insurance companies, either. I believe we should get back to a system whereby we pay for health care as needed, rather than rely on insurance to cover costs. At most, insurance should be for catastrophic, unforeseen circumstances only.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're (sic) version of America would be void of:

The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, AMTRAK, public beaches, public busing services, business subsidies, the Census Bureau, the CIA, Federal Student Loans, the Court System, dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, the Department of Energy, the EPA, Farm Subsidies, the FBI, the FCC, the FDA, FEMA, fire departments, food stamps, garbage collection, health care, public housing, the IRS, public landfills, public libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, state & national monuments, public museums, NASA, the National Weather Service, NPR, public parks, PBS, the Peace Corps, police departments, prisons & jails, public schools, Secret Service, sewer systems, snow removal services, Social Security, public street lighting, the Department of Transportation (highways, roads, bridges), USPS, vaccines, veteran health care, Welfare, the White House, the WIC program, and state zoos.

Well, let's see.

Department of Agriculture - I don't recall that being listed in the Constitution.
Amber Alerts - That can be done without federal interference, but one could also argue that this falls under "insure the common defense"
AMTRAK - YES, please.
public beaches - Those can be handled by local cities, as desired. There's no need for federal government involvement.
public busing services - Same as above.
business subsidies - I'm against subsidies of any kind. I've told you that before.
the Census Bureau - The census is a Constitutional mandate.

I could go on, but you get the gist (and my lunch break was up 10 minutes ago).

I don't think you even understand what Socialism really is.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

I hear people constantly complaining, and pushing for universal healthcare, pushing for others to pay for everyone's healthcare.

You're already on the wrong track. The reason why your premiums are so high is because you're already paying for those who don't have insurance, and paying extra so that the insurance companies can increase profit as providers seek to offset loss. Universal coverage would have nearly every American paying into the system, in essence, paying towards their own care.

As someone who hates going to the doctor, and doesn't routinely go, and feel that it's more of a burden than a right, I for one, wouldn't like to have this forced upon me.

Aside from getting Christian and lecturing you about being your brother's keeper, I will remain political. I meet people who complain about paying taxes for the school systems because they don't have kids. I'd be for it even if I didn't have kids. Why? Because I don't want to live in a nation of idiots! I have no issue paying for universal health insurance because I don't want to live in a nation of predominantly unhealthy sick people (what we have now compared to the rest of the Western world). Besides, the marginal tax increase for universal healthcare would be less than what most families pay in premiums every year. We'd save money and have a healthier, more humane, society.

As far as I know, most of Europe seems to have universal healthcare, and correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion, aren't most Europeans healthy, at least compared to Americans? If Americans had a healthcare system like countries in Europe, people insurance premiums will rocket, as Americans seems to glut themselves on fatty foods, drive everywhere, does very little exercise, and are generally unhealthy, unlike most Europeans.

Europeans are healthier. But they see the doctor, have physicals, and checkups five times more often than we do. When their weight is getting away from them, their doctor addresses it and recommends a dietary focus to lose the weight before it becomes obesity. When they have health issues like diabetes, it's caught and addressed before it gets so advanced it's more expensive to treat. It's all interrelated.

But you make a point that most have also seen. While it would still be cheaper than the system we have now, we'd see significant reduction in costs over several decades as more Americans are integrated into healthier lifestyles by regular and routine medical evaluations. It might take 5 to 10 years before we see significant reductions in obesity and serious conditions being diagnosed early enough that they are less expensive to treat.

Besides, Americans complain about paying 15% in taxes, they would hate it to see 50%-60%+ of their hard earned money, go to these government funded "rights". Americans live to much of a bloated lifestyle to see their comforts go away, even these liberals and progressives that are pushing for this.

Average American pays around what, $700 a month for a comprehensive family plan for four? Now, imagine if that $700 premium went away. But your taxes increased by $210 dollars a month. Then you pay a negotiated premium of about $90 a month... and done, your family is covered. Pay close attention here because most don't see it.... you get an extra $400 IN YOUR POCKET compared to what you were paying. You actually save money with single payer.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Are they tax payers?

Would there be a difference in your system between tax payers and non tax payers?
I do not see what difference that makes.
But to humor you:
Scenario 1
Taxpayer goes to doctor. Doctor says they need gender reassignment surgery.
Does this need to be covered?
Scenario 2
Non-Taxpayer goes to doctor. Doctor says they need gender reassignment surgery.
Does this need to be covered?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're already on the wrong track. The reason why your premiums are so high is because you're already paying for those who don't have insurance, and paying extra so that the insurance companies can increase profit as providers seek to offset loss. Universal coverage would have nearly every American paying into the system, in essence, paying towards their own care.




Aside from getting Christian and lecturing you about being your brother's keeper, I will remain political. I meet people who complain about paying taxes for the school systems because they don't have kids. I'd be for it even if I didn't have kids. Why? Because I don't want to live in a nation of idiots! I have no issue paying for universal health insurance because I don't want to live in a nation of predominantly unhealthy sick people (what we have now compared to the rest of the Western world). Besides, the marginal tax increase for universal healthcare would be less than what most families pay in premiums every year. We'd save money and have a healthier, more humane, society.



Europeans ar
e healthier. But they see the doctor, have physicals, and checkups five times more often than we do. When their weight is getting away from them, their doctor addresses it and recommends a dietary focus to lose the weight before it becomes obesity. When they have health issues like diabetes, it's caught and addressed before it gets so advanced it's more expensive to treat. It's all interrelated.

But you make a point that most have also seen. While it would still be cheaper than the system we have now, we'd see significant reduction in costs over several decades as more Americans are integrated into healthier lifestyles by regular and routine medical evaluations. It might take 5 to 10 years before we see significant reductions in obesity and serious conditions being diagnosed early enough that they are less expensive to treat.



Average American pays around what, $700 a month for a comprehensive family plan for four? Now, imagine if that $700 premium went away. But your taxes increased by $210 dollars a month. Then you pay a negotiated premium of about $90 a month... and done, your family is covered. Pay close attention here because most don't see it.... you get an extra $400 IN YOUR POCKET compared to what you were paying. You actually save money with single payer.

A - the assumptions you make here are like others that you consistently make.
Several times, I have tried to engage in dialogue with you and when you are wrong, you simply leave the thread or ignore me.
It makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

Let's start with just one of your statements here.
"Europeans are healthier".
As I said before, I have spent several years in the healthcare field.
And I have looked at this question, before, some years ago.
When you just consider medical related issues, there was no statistical significant difference between the US and the EU.
An example of the "noise" that had to be filtered out would be auto accidents. The US drives many more miles than those in the EU, so health issues from auto accidents have to be discounted.
This is just a small example of making sure that studies are valid and making valid comparisons.