quote:


La Repubblica tutela la salute come fondamentale diritto dell'individuo e interesse della collettività

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
I personally kept it an economical and not a moral issue, and yet I think you're being screwed up.
I don't know where in history the concept of "a right is what USA costitution protects everything else can't be a right" become a universal concept, maybe since american tv serials had been exported all around the globe I don't know, but for example in my country it is a right as the article 32 of the italian costitution says:

quote:

La Repubblica tutela la salute come fondamentale diritto dell'individuo e interesse della collettività

that means "The Republic protects health as a fundamental individual right and an interest for collectivity", maybe it's not a right or it's just a right you don't have... but you have the right to "buy and sell alchool with whatever limitation your state decide because enforcing the right to remain sober messed up the country" for example we don't have this one.
You're making it more an ideological issue, and it's hard for me to understand what kind of ideology can be as it's something extraneous to my culture or to the political debate in my country, maybe it's also other outside the USA have the same difficoulties.
By the way morality is not the same as "being pitiful" but it's about what's right and what's wrong, so "do not not steal" is a moral concept, and the legislative power is based on the concept of morality.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...The only reason insurance prices are high, is because cost of individual procedures and services is high. Lower those costs, and you'll lower the cost of insurance. Putting in a price control won't maintain access and quality.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care.

It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom.

This kind of logic, or the similarly inane argument advanced by DS makes for fun semantic games for people who take pleasure in being obtuse. The rest of us just yawn and shake our heads sadly at the stupidity involved.
Basing public healthcare policy on a foundation as flimsy and tenuous as this makes for a lot of dead people over time, as the c50,000 Americans who die annually from lack of healthcare will attest.
The goal of healthcare is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, not contribute to or increase deaths and suffering.

I'm not being obtuse, nor am I playing a game.

People argue that health care is a right. Why is it a right? "Because lack of health care causes death and people have the right to life." [paraphrased]

Um, no. Lack of health care does not cause death. Health care can only extend life by countering the effects of disease.

Basing public health care policy on moral grounds is is ridiculous. You can't legislate morality. Government isn't about morality or emotional stuff. It's all about the legalities.

Government is about securing the rights of the governed.

Health care is a necessity, but it is not a right. Having health insurance is good, but it is not a right. Having our health care costs low is a damn good thing, but, again, it is not a right.
[...]
I am not playing a game. I am not relying on semantics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
Ok I'm having a hard time keeping up with the posts and I see you already quoted my post before I could edit it so I rewrite the addition here: So you suggest there is some kind of cartel, I think the problem is different, there is no private interest in providing a certain kind of basic health care service, a different kind of service, so the community (not necessarly the governament) should invest in the best interest of its people.
I cleared my point on the economical issue I have no more interest in discussing it.

quote:

I don't agree with what you told in post #262 If there was not a set of laws to protect a right the right doesn't exist, your being human is not enought to protect from being robbed by someone stronger than you, than different cultures have different attitudes, in my language for example the word that translate "right" is not also the opposite of wrong and the opposite of left, but it's the same of law and the same of stright, so probably the different language morrors a different culture and a different attitude to this kind of matters. With this I won't go on in the discussion on this other topic as this is to far from the OP

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


If you create government for the purpose of giving you rights, you aren't getting rights, but getting privileges of being within that government's reach.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...The only reason insurance prices are high, is because cost of individual procedures and services is high. Lower those costs, and you'll lower the cost of insurance. Putting in a price control won't maintain access and quality.....

I don't agree with that statement Desi.
IMHO, the insurance cost is sooo high because the US has allowed punitive and incidental claims to escalate to such a high and ridiculous faerie-tale level that all but a zillionaire needs to have them to cover their ass.

quote:

As a 'domino effect' of having to have those high insurance costs, anyone involved in providing any sort of service, healthcare or otherwise, needs to charge a humungous amount to cover those cost at the business level. On top of that, because each individual person needs to pay for their own insurances, they are having to demand an unnaturally high wage for their own costs.
Just those two things alone will quadruple the cost of US expense compared to anywhere else in the world for that same service.
This is where the US' free enterprise has gone nuts and out of control.
It's just sheer greed on people making exorbitant claims and insurance companies wanting huge profits.

quote:

Why do you think that Haiti are filing for claims against the UN for damages in the US??
It's because they can claim billions in compensation compared to a few hundred thousand anywhere else.
This is why most countries have a monetary cap on what can be claimed for in compensation - it avoids the spiralling claims where people and companies push the limits beyond anything sensible.
If the US put a cap on claims so the insurance companies aren't scared shitless at paying gazillions of $$'s in claims, then put a cap on what they are allowed to charge in premiums, the whole fantasy house-of-cards would collapse into something affordable.

quote:

ETA: Apply that across the board and everything becomes cheaper and more affordable - especially healthcare and associated products and services.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care.

It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom.

This kind of logic, or the similarly inane argument advanced by DS makes for fun semantic games for people who take pleasure in being obtuse. The rest of us just yawn and shake our heads sadly at the stupidity involved.
Basing public healthcare policy on a foundation as flimsy and tenuous as this makes for a lot of dead people over time, as the c50,000 Americans who die annually from lack of healthcare will attest.
The goal of healthcare is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, not contribute to or increase deaths and suffering.

I'm not being obtuse, nor am I playing a game.
People argue that health care is a right. Why is it a right? "Because lack of health care causes death and people have the right to life." [paraphrased]
Um, no. Lack of health care does not cause death. Health care can only extend life by countering the effects of disease.
Basing public health care policy on moral grounds is is ridiculous. You can't legislate morality. Government isn't about morality or emotional stuff. It's all about the legalities.
Government is about securing the rights of the governed.
Health care is a necessity, but it is not a right. Having health insurance is good, but it is not a right. Having our health care costs low is a damn good thing, but, again, it is not a right.
[...]
I am not playing a game. I am not relying on semantics.

So the real reason for your obstinacy reveals itself - ideology. Nothing to do with healthcare per se, nothing to do with saving or prolonging lives - it all boils down to an ideological antipathy towards 'socialised medicine'.
To the USA Right it doesn't matter that tens of thousands of American citizens die unnecessary deaths annually. It doesn't matter that country after country has demonstrated that universal healthcare systems are far cheaper and produce far superior health outcomes. It doesn't even matter whether lack of healthcare causes needless fatalities or not.
There's an ideological objection and nothing, absolutely nothing is going to be allowed to challenge that flawed ideology. Which leaved me shaking my head sadly. The costs of the Right's ideological objection to universal healthcare is measured in the tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths that were a direct result of the ridiculous healthcare system previously operative in the USA.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


What would happen if the cost of care was reduced so that it was more affordable, without insurance? What would that do to the cost of insurance? Would "tens of thousands" of American citizens die unnecessary deaths?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you create government for the purpose of giving you rights, you aren't getting rights, but getting privileges of being within that government's reach.

I used the word LAW not governament, also a governament exist because there is a set of laws that define its existence

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

What would happen if the cost of care was reduced so that it was more affordable, without insurance? What would that do to the cost of insurance? Would "tens of thousands" of American citizens die unnecessary deaths?

That would make insurance useless. A good thing. But without controls over it, that would be the point at which the costs to the consumers would spike dramatically again. So, lose the insurance, single payer national healthcare. Quit fucking around.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Exactly, not repeal, single payer national healthcare, put the teabaggers to work on it, instead of repeal, whine, do nothing.
There is the fix, as I have said all along.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I am not playing a game. I am not relying on semantics.
To caim that someone dies from a disease and not from the lack of treatment for that disease is semantic game playing.

quote:

To bring that weak ass sophmoric shit to a discussion board for adults is insulting.

quote:

To deny that it is weak ass sophmoric shit is stupid on it's face.

quote:

This is the sort of moronic shit that causes people to disregare post of this nature

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)