RE: Why is US medical care so expensive?

RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 2:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Don't need to. I take your posts on the threads that I read and respond to. Now, if you're going to tell me that your beliefs are different from what you've been posting here, that's one thing. I highly doubt that, so I might know more about your beliefs than you think. Your arrigance is showing yet again. Allow me to enlighten you. I want a National Health Care System. I am done with insurance companies dictating hospital protocol. Got sick of it when Kaiser started pushing port partum women out of OB 8 hours after delivery. Insurance costs are driven up by those who do not have insurance. Something I have stated for years.... But of course you believe you know my views after a few short posts. [8\|] But yet, you believe you know me already. A few short posts? Gimme a break. I'm not going to argue against the fact that the uninsured play a part in raising costs. I will argue that simply having everyone covered will lower costs. Having everyone covered isn't even the point of PPACA. PPACA isn't going to cover everyone. I believe it was supposed to increase coverage by 10M, which still leaves millions not covered. It still does not address enough of the underlying pillars that drive up costs. Let's say we go to a National Health Care Single Payer (Government) System. How is Government going to solve the problem of reimbursement rates? Simply pay what Government chooses? If it's not enough for the providers [as determined by the providers], how do we keep enough providers to keep up with patient load? Are we going to force people to work? This will not significantly lower costs. At most, it will give a short-term plateau to rising costs. Then what? Eventually, you'll have people deciding to not work at all rather than expose themselves to rising tax rates. Reduce the tax base while tax needs continue to rise and you'll have to keep raising taxes on a smaller and smaller base to pay for stuff. quote: quote: At what point does that answer address how long you have the right to live? You have a crystal ball? Do you get to determine how long anyone has a right to live? Insurance companies do.. and thats what people are so fed up with. That still doesn't answer my question, either. My point is that we don't have some set age that we are all allowed to live to. Since that is absolute truth, how is health care a right? quote: quote: Or, if you don't live to your "rightful" age, whether or not your survivors can sue? People have sued.. and won. Families have sued.. and won. You believe that will stop? I do like your fantasy world. Too bad it isnt reality. I'm going to assume that you are referring to "wrongful death" lawsuits. Isn't it accurate to say that those who caused the death be the ones that are held responsible? If you die of cancer, who do you sue? There is no 100%, guaranteed cure for cancer, so all the treatment in the world might not stop what is actually killing you. Until you can define how long you have the right to live for, how can anyone be sued, unless they took actions to end your life? quote: quote: Sorry, wrong again. It wasn't Capitalism that was unchecked. It was (and still is, btw) Corporatism that has been and still is unchecked. Corporatism that is rampantly supported by both parties. The regulators were asleep at the switch, well, they were too busy watching porn on our dimes, actually. The regulations were in place already. The Congressional report even states it. The Congressional Report even went so far as to finger the Federal Reserve as the ones who are tasked with preventing this sort of thing and that they failed to do that. Ah yes, Ma Bell, a perfect example. [;)] Ma Bell? Please do explain how Ma Bell had something to do with our current financial issue. quote: quote: You want to go into the horrible institutions that are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You want to go into how they fucked us and are still fucking us? Yet these real sins have been largely overlooked in favor of imagined ones. Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, two resident scholars, Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto, have concocted what has since become a Republican meme: namely, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ground zero for the entire crisis, leading the private sector off the cliff with their affordable housing mandates and massive subprime holdings. The truth is the opposite: Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages, with great trepidation, only in 2005 and 2006, and only because they were losing so much market share to Wall Street. Among other things, the Wallison-Pinto case relies on inflated data — Pinto classifies just about anything that is not a 30-year-fixed mortgage as “subprime.” The reality is that Fannie and Freddie followed the private sector off the cliff instead of the other way around. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html?_r=1 So, to get back into the game, Fannie and Freddie jump into the game and practically tell lenders that they'll buy whatever paper is written, just to write it up and let them at it. As Fannie and Freddie continued to do that, what do you think lenders are going to do? The risk to the lender is essentially, zero, so the risk models have changed. If there isn't any risk, interest rates get lower. Why is there no risk? Because Fannie and Freddie are going to buy the paper before the ink dries. What about the risk to Fannie and Freddie? Not the lender's problem. That can't be, though, right? Have your mortgage experts talk to mine and we'll see what comes out of it. I have my info directly from mortgage brokers during the run up, and eventual collapse. But, what do they know, right? quote: Free-market capitalism Main article: Free market See also: Laissez-faire Free market capitalism consists of a free-price system where supply and demand are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by the government. Productive enterprises are privately owned, and the role of the state is limited to protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property. There are people here far more knowledgable about laissez-faire and the housing bubble than I. My field is medical.. I have no doubt they will come along soon enough. Now, answer my question... I do not have the faith in free market that you do. Free Market Capitalism Since we dont have one, can you point to a country that does so I can compare? Just one country that has a free market capital system... just one. Obviously, you already know that answer to be no. There isn't one out there. We were as close to a completely free market as anyone. And, I don't support completely free Markets. There is some necessity of Government regulation. I freely admit and agree with that. I also freely admit that the benefits of Government regulation do not continue to rise as regulation levels rise. I also fully believe we've past that tipping point where more intervention reduces the benefits of intervention. The people driving the bus to have Government be in control of more, more, more have yet to show where that bus is going to stop. Is it going to stop at a European style of governance? Or, is it going to stop at socialism or communism? Love to see where either of those has worked. Do you not pay any attention to what is happening in Europe? The riots in Greece, Britain, Spain, Italy, or France when their Government starts to make changes to keep financial matters in check? Anything? The disquiet in Germany over having to spend more to help out Eurozone country/ies? Before you get to Europe, you will have to understand the European mindset. Germans actually have a very fiscally conservative personal manner. I was surprised by some of the stories I hear from a friend who is working over there. Very eye-opening, both in his care costs (he has to pay and get reimbursed by his US-based insurance) and in the conservative consumption over there. You can't have our level of Freedom and Liberty along with a European-style national health care system. They are incompatible. In actuality, if we had the conservative consumption qualities of the Germans, it is my opinion that health care would not cost quite as much, and more people would be able to afford their own care simply because they have more of their own money.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 2:07:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ConfidencePlays In answer to the topic; because we do not treat illness, we treat symptoms. We do not invest in preventative care, we wait until it's too goddamn late. It's expensive because it's designed to be. Medicine in America is an industry. Next question. How do we fix it, then? I'm not even going to disagree with the premise of your argument because I completely agree that it plays its part. Some will say that everyone having insurance will fix the prevention/cure imbalance, but that will only address who pays and who doesn't, not in why it's so expensive. How do we lower costs?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 2:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Didn't you say this? "I support charities and honestly believe they are the way to get things done properly, and more efficiently than via government." Explain to me, and everyone, how showing that charities are woefully inadequate at addressing the needs of the poor/sick/infirm/elderly/children, and showing why governments around the world, for over 2000 years, have had to step in and do the job, is going "off on some wacko tangent"? Because it had nothing to do with the Biblical quotes you threw out. You don't get to use Biblical passages only when you think they fit your argument. Especially when they don't fit your argument. Had you shown me how those passages did, in fact, apply, it wouldn't have been some wacko tangent. Alas, you did not. quote: I'm not a narcissistic egoist. I don't award myself victories. I let the readers decide such. Actually, I think they've pretty much decided. Now, I'll ask my fellow Forum-dwellers a question. Would I be correct in stating that the majority of those who identify with conservatism/right-wing philosophy also identify as being Xtian? (Now I can dig up the research, but I don't think it necessary) If you affirm this statement, then I don't think it's a wild leap of faith ☺ to infer that desi is a Xtian. As such, he has an obligation to submit to duly constituted authority, and not act contrary to his professed faith. (better?) I cite Romans 13:1-7: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Quod erat demonstrandum. So, now we have Government established by God? Really? Once again, you are attempting to use a Biblical passage where it, in fact, does not apply. The truth of the matter is, I pay my taxes. I give honor and respect to those I owe it (and have no problem apologizing when it is brought to my attention that I have not). What I do not do is want to pay taxes to a government that is over-stepping it's Constitutional boundaries. Government does not have the authority to do whatever it wants. I support those who agree with my beliefs as to what "duly constituted" means. I certainly hope you aren't one of those people who disagrees with the US Government on anything, or an Occupy Wall Street-er (my only gripe with OWS, btw, is that they should be aimed squarely at Washington DC, not Wall Street) who resists authority. I hope you also don't complain about the rich not paying their fair share, because, if they are complying with IRS tax code, then they are paying what they are supposed to pay, according to the duly constituted government. You might want to read the first part of Matthew 7, btw.

itsSIRtou -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 3:32:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: ConfidencePlays In answer to the topic; because we do not treat illness, we treat symptoms. We do not invest in preventative care, we wait until it's too goddamn late. It's expensive because it's designed to be. Medicine in America is an industry. Next question. How do we fix it, then? I'm not even going to disagree with the premise of your argument because I completely agree that it plays its part. Some will say that everyone having insurance will fix the prevention/cure imbalance, but that will only address who pays and who doesn't, not in why it's so expensive. How do we lower costs? VERY SIMPLE!!! Start with the upper Management costs..... we have CEO's of hospitals in many cases making multi-millions to run things and the other officers on the ladder not far behind all the way down to middle management. Most CEO's in health care come from other industries with not even close ties to a hospital work environment. and all of them get "golden parachutes" income packages where no matter what profit or loss happends they still get paid the same, and even if they are there only a short time, and hugely fail,...they get paid to LEAVE, and never lose any benefits or perks for being there like free health care. And many even if they were an abysmal failure as CEO they can get kept on as PAID "advisiors" to do esentaillly just show up at board meetings every so often and collect a check. the doctors who actually have your life in their hands get paid crap compared to people who get paid to push paper around. I know thats simplyifing things but really, who should we be paying more, the person who saves ur life or the one who signs the paperwork afterwards? Maybe if instead of "golden parachutes" income packages.... we move to the same performance based system they want to use on teachers.... if they make the hospital capeable of more successful healthcare and the end result is even the poorest clients are doing better,... they get paid more. They fail to improve things then they get nothing. I can hear the "free market" whineing allready...

tweakabelle -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 3:52:05 AM)
quote: DesiderScuri How do we lower costs? Very simple. Establish a universal health scheme asap. They cost about half the cost of the system that operates in the USA currently. This has already been pointed out to you many times. Yet it doesn't seem to have been understood. Every point you have made in this thread has been so thoroughly rebutted so many times by so many people coming from so many diverse perspectives that it would be more accurate to describe your position as trashed. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this or change your position. Please re-read the thread and try to take on board the various arguments, facts and perspectives posted. There are multiple steps to take to reduce US health costs, not one of them more effective than the simple solution offered above which, I repeat, if properly designed will halve US healthcare costs, as well as saving tens of thousands of American lives annually. Why anyone continues to oppose such a win-win solution is not a question that comes with a flattering answer.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 4:02:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Every point you have made in this thread has been so thoroughly rebutted so many times by so many people coming from so many diverse perspectives that it would be more accurate to describe your position as trashed. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this or change your position. For some strange reason I am reminded of this... ☺

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 4:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I support those who agree with my beliefs as to what "duly constituted" means. Duh. quote: I certainly hope you aren't one of those people who disagrees with the US Government on anything, or an Occupy Wall Street-er (my only gripe with OWS, btw, is that they should be aimed squarely at Washington DC, not Wall Street) who resists authority. I hope you also don't complain about the rich not paying their fair share, because, if they are complying with IRS tax code, then they are paying what they are supposed to pay, according to the duly constituted government. You're damn fucking right I am. I fucked around with Ayn Rand and Harry Browne and all that shit, but I wised up. By the way, you ever been asked for your input into the tax code? Didn't think so. Me either. Nor has anyone I know. Someone I've met has, though. He founded a big software company that was bought out not long ago. Multi-billionaire. But you keep thinking the 1%ers, and especially the Forbes 400, are actually paying for all the government services they use. And again, why don't you take a look at the two Occupy Amendments proposed. There are links here, if you search back. By the way redux, do you think your position hasn't been disected here before? CM didn't just materialize when you joined, dude. quote: You might want to read the first part of Matthew 7, btw. I'm an Atheist.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 4:45:44 AM)
quote: PPACA reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to over 30 million Americans, quote: Let's say we go to a National Health Care Single Payer (Government) System. How is Government going to solve the problem of reimbursement rates? Simply pay what Government chooses? If it's not enough for the providers [as determined by the providers], how do we keep enough providers to keep up with patient load? Are we going to force people to work? This will not significantly lower costs. At most, it will give a short-term plateau to rising costs. Then what? Eventually, you'll have people deciding to not work at all rather than expose themselves to rising tax rates. Reduce the tax base while tax needs continue to rise and you'll have to keep raising taxes on a smaller and smaller base to pay for stuff. I heard that cock and bull story about how physicians would leave this country in droves if it was passed at all. Yet, no such mass exodus occurred. When you can prove that theory, do let me know. quote: That still doesn't answer my question, either. My point is that we don't have some set age that we are all allowed to live to. Since that is absolute truth, how is health care a right? Its as much of a right as your right to be free... which is why you trimmed that part of my post. quote: I'm going to assume that you are referring to "wrongful death" lawsuits. Isn't it accurate to say that those who caused the death be the ones that are held responsible? If you die of cancer, who do you sue? There is no 100%, guaranteed cure for cancer, so all the treatment in the world might not stop what is actually killing you. Until you can define how long you have the right to live for, how can anyone be sued, unless they took actions to end your life? The same way they sued over wrongful deaths when the AIDS scare was in its heyday. Did the insurance companies cause their aids? Nope. They denied them care. There wasnt a single person at those insurance companies who caused their disease, wasnt a single person who could have cured their disease, yet they were held accountable for denying care to those who needed it. Because something is not curable is no excuse, no matter how much you want it to be true to make your argument valid. quote: Ma Bell? Please do explain how Ma Bell had something to do with our current financial issue. Ma Bell... the mega-corporation that outgrew itself and screwed everyone with their rate hikes time and time again... all because they could.. until it was finally shut down and forced to give up its strangle hold on their customers. It was allowed to grow unchecked... which is one of the basis for your free market capitalistic system... and it failed. quote: That can't be, though, right? Have your mortgage experts talk to mine and we'll see what comes out of it. I have my info directly from mortgage brokers during the run up, and eventual collapse. But, what do they know, right? They know enough to lie to cover their asses. quote: Obviously, you already know that answer to be no. There isn't one out there. Then explain to me how you are so absolutely sure this is the best thing for anyone. quote: Do you not pay any attention to what is happening in Europe? The riots in Greece, Britain, Spain, Italy, or France when their Government starts to make changes to keep financial matters in check? Anything? The disquiet in Germany over having to spend more to help out Eurozone country/ies? Its not as simple as you wish to make it out to be. Riots? Yup, well aware. Unrest, completely aware. I was one calling for the US not to bail out any corporation, instead, for having the government take them over. quote: Before you get to Europe, you will have to understand the European mindset. Germans actually have a very fiscally conservative personal manner. I was surprised by some of the stories I hear from a friend who is working over there. Very eye-opening, both in his care costs (he has to pay and get reimbursed by his US-based insurance) and in the conservative consumption over there. What does that have to do with our health care system? Each country runs its own, a different way. Just because your friend in Greece isnt happy with his doesnt make someone else in another country not happy with theirs. quote: You can't have our level of Freedom and Liberty along with a European-style national health care system. They are incompatible. Ah, there is your mistake. Who said I was advocating for an European-style NHS? quote: In actuality, if we had the conservative consumption qualities of the Germans, it is my opinion that health care would not cost quite as much, and more people would be able to afford their own care simply because they have more of their own money. lmao... by returning the 25-27% people pay out of their paychecks in taxes? I need to talk to your accounting people.. they are miracle workers.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 5:02:29 AM)
quote: How do we fix it, then? I'm not even going to disagree with the premise of your argument because I completely agree that it plays its part. Some will say that everyone having insurance will fix the prevention/cure imbalance, but that will only address who pays and who doesn't, not in why it's so expensive. How do we lower costs? Oh, I dunno... lets start by getting rid of the over priced art work inside, and outside, some of the hospitals we see. Then, we get rid of the shareholders who have to be paid. Get rid of the high cost bidding wars that come with construction and maintenance of those facilities. Then we get rid of over-billing, double billing, delayed payments, blanket denial rubber stamping. End Doctors involvement in outside interest such as free standing labs and radiology. You have just cut out billions of dollars in waste in the health care system. Our health care never should have been allowed to become "for profit".

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 8:31:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: ConfidencePlays In answer to the topic; because we do not treat illness, we treat symptoms. We do not invest in preventative care, we wait until it's too goddamn late. It's expensive because it's designed to be. Medicine in America is an industry. Next question. How do we fix it, then? I'm not even going to disagree with the premise of your argument because I completely agree that it plays its part. Some will say that everyone having insurance will fix the prevention/cure imbalance, but that will only address who pays and who doesn't, not in why it's so expensive. How do we lower costs? VERY SIMPLE!!! Start with the upper Management costs..... we have CEO's of hospitals in many cases making multi-millions to run things and the other officers on the ladder not far behind all the way down to middle management. Most CEO's in health care come from other industries with not even close ties to a hospital work environment. and all of them get "golden parachutes" income packages where no matter what profit or loss happends they still get paid the same, and even if they are there only a short time, and hugely fail,...they get paid to LEAVE, and never lose any benefits or perks for being there like free health care. And many even if they were an abysmal failure as CEO they can get kept on as PAID "advisiors" to do esentaillly just show up at board meetings every so often and collect a check. the doctors who actually have your life in their hands get paid crap compared to people who get paid to push paper around. I know thats simplyifing things but really, who should we be paying more, the person who saves ur life or the one who signs the paperwork afterwards? Maybe if instead of "golden parachutes" income packages.... we move to the same performance based system they want to use on teachers.... if they make the hospital capeable of more successful healthcare and the end result is even the poorest clients are doing better,... they get paid more. They fail to improve things then they get nothing. I can hear the "free market" whineing allready... Want to know the truth? I agree with you that CEO's make a ridiculous amount of money. But, why do they make that much? There has to be some economic benefit the CEO is providing over and above his/her salary. Same goes for upper management. While we agree they get paid more than handsomely, we don't know why they garner those salaries. We also don't know how to end that practice. Well, not constitutionally. So, the way to combat these high prices is to....force people to buy insurance (you know, I bet the upper management of insurance companies make a pretty hefty dollar, too). If you'd like to show me how that's a good idea, I'm all ears.

SoftBonds -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 12:33:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Want to know the truth? I agree with you that CEO's make a ridiculous amount of money. But, why do they make that much? There has to be some economic benefit the CEO is providing over and above his/her salary. Same goes for upper management. While we agree they get paid more than handsomely, we don't know why they garner those salaries. Why do CEO's get such handsome salaries? Look at "executive compensation boards." Generally formed of CEO's and former CEO's who have a mandate to ensure that the CEO of the company at question is paid "above the average," or "in the top quarter," of CEO pay in their industry or for similar size companies. If you are a CEO and want a raise, ask the executive compensation board to meet. You will get a raise. It has nothing to do with the quality of your work. It is cronyism. Bad luck for shareholders, but great for the CEO's Not sure why bringing this up helps your point, but hey, you still haven't explained why you defend me paying for your health care since I pay for insurance and you don't... Wait, maybe it is just selfishness???

submittous -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 4:34:32 PM)
Costs for procedures etc are inflated in the US to create higher profit margins.... Costs to health care providers in Europe and much of first world Asia are similar to ours in Mexico. I wish I wasn't but I am familiar with lots of costs here and have paid out of pocket for everything (with the sometimes successful hope that the VA would reimburse since the diseases involved are 100% service connected). We have available the newest equipment, personnel trained at the best facilities in the US and Europe plus the medical system here competes for customers by having the best product for the dollar and the best results. Some examples would be a Gamma Knife procedure costing 160.000 pesos (about 14,000 USD at the time), we researched all over the US and the lowest we found was 38k US at a teaching hospital without certified operators, highest was approaching 200,000 USD. I get PET scans regularly for cancer detection and they cost less than 2k US.... 10 to 20 in the states. MRI's here run about 300 dollars (much like France, Germany etc) and 3 to 4 times that up north. One real reason you pay so much per capita for health care in the US is you over pay for drugs and services. The solution is complex but the first step would be to change the system so high costs don't profit everyone in the system. For example a doctor charges a percentage of the cost of a procedure so the more expensive the equipment use fee the more they make, insurance companies make a percentage of what they pay out... they'll just charge more to customers to make a higher overall profit. Take the profit motive out of health care like the rest of the first world (they see it as immoral) and let non profit corporations compete for YOUR business instead of competing among themselves for higher profit margins and stock prices. Seems simple enough, corporations should be competing for customer satisfaction instead of profits for investors. As to the old saw that profit creates innovation... bullshit, non profit medical companies compete for their jobs and survival just like for profit ones do, but to be the surviving company they have to satisfy customers instead of share holders.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 5:56:09 PM)
I just found this from the WAPO about costs in comparison with the US and other "developed countries" (Argentina, Canada, Chile, India,France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland) you can see yourself the differences in cost for procedures http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/ and the parent page..why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html?tid=pm_business_pop

Real0ne -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 6:51:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds The "sterilize all women who get abortions" thread has wondered far enough afield that we should re-name and re-start it... So here you go! quote: Why is US medical care so expensive? um because the gubafia got involved, so lets have the gubafia solve it! ~voice of insanity

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:09:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: And, no, health care is not a right. It's a privilege. If it's a basic human right, we need to give it to everyone, not just US citizens or people who go into our hospitals. You see, basic human rights have been more or less defined in the Declaration of Independence. The 3 biggies are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. They are the so-called "Natural" Rights. Every human has them. Every one of them. And, it's these natural rights that we work towards spreading 'round the world. If I am forced into doing something regardless of what I want, that infringes on my right to Liberty. Someone not having the ability to pay for a health care procedure is not an infringement of the right to Life. I knew it was just a matter of time before "Natural Rights" was brought up. Rather than going through the whole song and dance again, I'll just quote myself from a year ago on another site: "I finally figured out what bothers me about the Libertarian viewpoint regarding the Constitution. Inevitably the argument ends up at "natural rights", which I suppose is derived from the theory of "Natural Law" (which is an interesting discussion in itself, but which lies in the realm of Philosophy. For those so inclined, there's a very good article at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ) "However, a secular critique of the natural law doctrine was stated by Pierre Charron in his De la Sagesse (1601): "The sign of a natural law must be the universal respect in which it is held, for if there was anything that nature had truly commanded us to do, we would undoubtedly obey it universally: not only would every nation respect it, but every individual. Instead there is nothing in the world that is not subject to contradiction and dispute, nothing that is not rejected, not just by one nation, but by many; equally, there is nothing that is strange and (in the opinion of many) unnatural that is not approved in many countries, and authorized by their customs." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law] Charron has stated my thoughts on the matter rather more eloquently than I could have. Fundamentally, the concepts of Natural Law and Natural Rights are entirely synthetic; there is no universal morality one can identify in human behavior. What is moral and "natural" is whatever we define it as being. The only possible appeal that I can see is to a higher authority; the "Creator" of the Declaration of Independence. I reject this, as there is no Creator that can be shown to exist. "Natural Rights" are, therefore, whatever we agree they are. And if we agree that controlling or banning firearms is a desirable goal, or that single-payer health insurance is something all should have, then there is no higher "law" preventing us from achieving those goals." Sorry, Natural Law is that which is law simply because it is. The Declaration of Independence was an amazingly different document. Mainly, it was different because of what it stated, that Man had inherent rights simply because He is. The US Constitution follows that and is a pact giving some authority to a Federal Government. That Authority came from the Citizens. Where else was it like that back then? England and France had Kings. Monarchy's gave the people their rights. If the monarchy didn't want you to be able to do something, it could state it and you were no longer allowed to do that for no reason other than the monarch chose it. The only "rights" those people had were those given to them by the rulers. Not so in America. And that is exactly why America was exceptional. It wasn't because we were better than everyone simply because we were born here. Our government was the exception. It was designed exactly that way, based on natural rights.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:13:23 PM)
quote: And that is exactly why America was exceptional. It wasn't because we were better than everyone simply because we were born here. Our government was the exception. It was designed exactly that way, based on natural rights. Exceptional???? Are you truly that arrogant???? We are different.... not exceptional.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:16:41 PM)
quote: Sorry, Natural Law is that which is law simply because it is. Sorry, no it isn't. Nor is Natural Law the basis for the Declaration in any substantial way: In jurisprudence and political philosophy, a system of right or justice common to all humankind and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law. The concept can be traced to Aristotle, who held that what was "just by nature" was not always the same as what was "just by law." In one form or another, the existence of natural law was asserted by the Stoics (see Stoicism), Cicero, the Roman jurists, St. Paul, St. Augustine, Gratian, St. Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Francisco Suárez. In the modern period, Hugo Grotius insisted on the validity of natural law even on the assumption that God does not exist, and Thomas Hobbes defined a law of nature as "a precept of general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life." Hobbes attempted to construct an edifice of law by rational deduction from a hypothetical "state of nature" and a social contract of consent between rulers and subjects. John Locke departed from Hobbes in describing the state of nature as an early society in which free and equal men observe the natural law. Jean-Jacques Rousseau postulated a savage who was virtuous in isolation and actuated by two principles "prior to reason": self-preservation and compassion. The authors of the U.S. Declaration of Independence refer only briefly to "the Laws of Nature" before citing equality and other "unalienable" rights as "self-evident." The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen asserts liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression as "imprescriptible natural rights." Interest in the concept of natural law declined dramatically in the 19th century, partly as a result of skeptical attacks by Jeremy Bentham and other proponents of utilitarianism; it was revived in the mid-20th century in light of the crimes committed by the Nazi regime during World War II. Skepticism of natural law and natural rights remained strong, however, and later writers almost invariably talked of human rights rather than natural rights. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: natural law Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-law#ixzz1oIqSCO2E

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:19:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds Also, polio doesn't cause death, since we didn't have a polio vaccine for that time period. Also, gangrene doesn't cause death, since we didn't have germ theory for most of that time period. Also, the black death doesn't cause death, cause back then we didn't know that rats and fleas carried the plague... Just because something causes death, doesn't mean some humans don't survive it dude. Are you seriously trying to use that as proof that lack of insurance causes death?!? from wiki: "The USA is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance).[17] In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."[17] while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.[18]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States Yes. Lack of healthcare coverage is regarded as a direct cause of unnecessary deaths in the USA. As you can see above, the number of these deaths are measured in the tens of thousands annually. AFAIK the US is the only Western country where lack of healthcare coverage is a direct cause of death. These claims are made by very reputable organisations - Harvard university and the Institute of Medicine, a part of the US National Academies. So, among professionals and academics specialising in this field, this claim is accepted fully. I hope you now realise why it is important to rely on evidence and data to form views about healthcare policy, and why ideology is useless for this task. All you use is ideology. Not having health insurance does not, and can not cause death. Period. How is it possible that we did not all die from not having insurance before it was ever created? This is you holding onto your ideology. If a guy dies from cancer, does it matter if he had insurance or not? No, he died from cancer. If lack of health insurance causes death, how is it that people with health insurance still die? If your argument is that lack of health insurance puts you at higher risk of death, I'd agree, but that death wouldn't be caused by not having insurance. Health insurance does not save lives, nor does it's lack end lives. It simply isn't possible. There is always some illness or disease that is the cause of death. Jim Fixx was running home from church as he was wont to do. He never made it home. A massive heart attack took his life. Did he die of running? No. Did he die because there wasn't an EMT right there to provide ALS care? No. He had a massive heart attack. That is what killed him. Did he have insurance? No idea. Doesn't matter, either. It has no bearing on his cause of death.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:31:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Your argument is losing more and more ground. You are suggesting that the Persuit of Happiness is a human right, granted in the Constitution our of one side of your mouth, then deny those unable to pay to enjoy that right. Wrong. Again. The pursuit of Happiness is individual. Your pursuit very well may not be mine. Your happiness very well may not be mine. You are free to pursue your Happiness. Life happens. You are not guaranteed Happiness, just that others are not allowed to infringe on your right to pursue it. If my pursuit of happiness included a Corvette, would I be able to force the American taxpayers to buy me a Corvette? No. quote: quote: They are the so-called "Natural" Rights. Every human has them. Every one of them. And, it's these natural rights that we work towards spreading 'round the world. Yup, they are, see above. quote: If I am forced into doing something regardless of what I want, that infringes on my right to Liberty. Someone not having the ability to pay for a health care procedure is not an infringement of the right to Life. Might want to try this definition of what Liberty actually meant... Virginia Bill of Rights "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."- Virginia Bill of Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights Sound familiar? It should. Much of it was written by founding fathers... and parts of it were taken for the US Constitution. quote: Someone not having the ability to pay for a health care procedure is not an infringement of the right to Life. Its an infringement on the pursuit of happiness and safety. Again, no it is not. It might hinder their pursuit, but no one caused it. Unless someone walks up to you and purposefully sneezes in your face with the intent to pass on flu germs, your getting the flu is not an infringement on your right to pursue happiness. Did anyone force these people to need health care? No. Did anyone force these people into not being able to afford health care? Not intentionally. So, who do you sue? Does Government give you your right to life? Nope. Does Government give you your right to Freedom? Government does the exact opposite, actually. It is the same with the Pursuit of Happiness. You have to decide what your pursuit is based on the hand you were dealt. I can not sue for a cherry NFL contract because I was not born with the physical gifts and aggression necessary to make it in the NFL. You pursue happiness framed within the circumstances in your life. Expectation of assistance, or the feeling of being entitled to that assistance, is not in keeping with natural rights. By forcing someone else to pay for the disadvantaged, you are infringing on that person's rights. Edit: forgot to address another misinterpretation... quote: Virginia Bill of Rights "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."- Virginia Bill of Rights Your bolding needs to be expanded. the entire phrase isn't "and pursuing and obtaining..." It starts "with the means of." The "acquiring and possessing property" are one phrase since they are not separated by a comma. Since the comma comes after "property," the rest also is linked with the "with the means of" phrase. It does not say that Government will provide what you need to acquire and possess property. Nor does it state that Government will provide you with the means to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is US medical care so expensive? (3/5/2012 7:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Here's something that's bothered me for a while. REAL CAPITALISTS say that the Free Market functions best when there's the maximum number of knowledgeable participants. So why are all these 'Republicans' so bent on limiting the number of healthy, educated citizens participating in the marketplace? It APPEARS they're just chickenshit cowards who -- while they TALK FREE MARKET -- don't have the balls to actually compete against one they're not handicapping. Where does a Republican say they want to limit the number of educated citizens participating in the marketplace? I would really love to see that. I know you're just twisting things to fit your ideas, but, seriously, you're way off on this one. Nice try though.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875