Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 12:50:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		And of course it is among the several. so, yes they can I firmly believe.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 301
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:06:01 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Community (not government) should work towards the best interest of the people within the community. I wholeheartedly agree.
What then would be the function of the city, county (comunity) government?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 302
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:18:17 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Government is a civil construct, a compact between the people governed.

Between the people governed and whom?



You can even look at a family as a government, with the parents being the government and the kids being the citizens. That's all government is.

Are you saying that the children had a choice or a vote?

This is where we differ in our views of government and rights. It seems to me that your rights emanate from your government;

He has mentioned several times that that is not his position but rather that is a straw man you are beating


that you have no rights unless government makes a law granting them to you.

No, it is a guarantee not a granting of anything, except that you choose to charactrize it as such in spite of being told of your ignorance. Why is it that you are the only one who continues to persue that fatuous line of bullshit?
No one but you has said that rights come from the govt.


For me, the only reasons for government and laws, is to protect the rights I already have.

Can you see the difference (not asking you to agree)?

Would you agree that our govt is a construct of "we the people"?
If so then "we the people" say these are a list of our rights and "we the people" are the govt then is the govt saying what our rights are???or are "we the people" saying what our rights are???or is there a difference?


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 10/9/2013 1:20:46 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 303
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:18:53 PM   
stirling710


Posts: 1
Joined: 9/29/2013
Status: offline 		I've had two serious emergency room admittances in my life, both life threatening.

The first was due to toxic algae (they think) served up on a softshell crab in North Carolina. At twenty minutes I started feeling ill. At thirty I told my girlfriend I needed to get to emerg. At forty, as I stumbled into the the little clinic, my vision was greyed out, I couldn't breath, couldn't form coherent sentences and I could feel my body shutting down. I managed to tell them I thought it was the crab, and collapsed on the floor at their desk. The kind nurse helped me into a chair while my girlfriend gave all our insurance details for the form and put a hundred dollars cash down to cover the deductable. I couldn't believe they were waiting on the paperwork, but they did. They were however quite professional once it was squared, got me in a room, gave me O2, gave me whatever shots were required.

The second was caused by going too fast on my bike down a hill in Vancouver. I wiped it out, hit the pavement face first, broke a lot bones and had internal bleeding. The ambulance scraped me off the pavement, I went through two operations, including more plastic surgery than most of Hollywood stars (and came out better looking too ). I spent a week in hospital on some really great drugs, and had three specialist followups. Total cost, $85 for the ambulance ride.

In both cases, insurance covered most of the cost. The kicker is though - I was a student for the bike accident, with no parental support. US style medical insurance would have been beyond my reach.

Draw your own conclusions.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 304
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:32:22 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		I firmly believe the US Constitution does not authorize the US Federal Government to provide for the health care of US Citizens.

I continue to hear this peurile whine about what the constitution does not authorize but have yet to hear a mother fucking word about what it does authorize. I hear the droll phrase "enumerated powers" but when pressed for a listing none of the proponents seem knowledgible enough to list them for fear of being "interogated".


No matter what the merits of an issue are, if it's not authorized by the US Constitution, there is no authority for the Federal Government to provide it.

What should be done about those unauthorized actions?

It really is that simple. And, this is not simply limited to health care, either.

Could you provide us a list?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 305
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:40:05 PM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And of course it is among the several. so, yes they can I firmly believe.


sorry, is it a reply to any of my posts? If it is I can't understand what you mean.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 306
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 1:41:15 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		You are taking a look as a right coming from government.

That would be an idiotic interpretation of his post. He does not say that at all. This is a construct in your own mind so that now you have a straw man to knock down.

"If there was not a set of laws to protect a right the right doesn't exist..."

If there was not a right, there would be no set of laws to protect it. That's a look as the right being there without government.

The mother fucking point is that if that right is not protected it does not ipso facto exist...no one but you is saying that the government gives anyone rights.

Since, without government, there is no protection from the stronger abusing the weaker any which way they want, we come together to form government.

So the weak guy tells the strong guy who is abusing him that he is going to form a gang (govt.)to keep the strong guy from abusing him. Now the gang (govt) says no more abuse of the weak by the strong.
Oh my fucking gawd such a grasp of reality is seldom seen these days.



There is no need for government if there are no rights to protect.

Wrong again. It would appear that the govt seems to be the one who decides what are rights. The govt is us,therefore "we the people" determine what is a right and through our government "we the people" enforce and protect those rights. For somone to attempt a construct that claims he govt (here in the u.s.) is somehow different than "we the people" is fatuous and just another attempt to derail any discussion.

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.

You are the only one making the assertion that the government gives rights. Why is that?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 307
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:00:06 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

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.

I wonder how that is handled in countries with socialised medicine?

Very simple.
The courts and the legal system don't allow stupidly exorbitant compensation costs.

What would you consider "stupidly exoritant compensation costs"?


A good example of this is the multi-billion class-action lawsuit for thalidamide victims.
In the US, the claim runs into literally billions of $'s.
In the UK, it was pruned to just a few hundred thousand $'s.

Would you have any validation for that.



(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 308
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:01:37 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And of course it is among the several. so, yes they can I firmly believe.


sorry, is it a reply to any of my posts? If it is I can't understand what you mean.



it is in general reply to those who firmly believe that the constitution does not allow the fed to handle heathcare, as I point out, a situation 'among the several'. I do not believe you have taken that position.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 309
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:26:52 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

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.

I wonder how that is handled in countries with socialised medicine?

Very simple.
The courts and the legal system don't allow stupidly exorbitant compensation costs.

What would you consider "stupidly exoritant compensation costs"?

 
As an example, a 'decent' level of personal compensation over here would be maybe £5,000?
You wouldn't get much more than in general because the courts won't make such huge awards.
In the US, that same claim would almost certainly run into several hundred thousand $'s - maybe over $1million.



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
A good example of this is the multi-billion class-action lawsuit for thalidamide victims.
In the US, the claim runs into literally billions of $'s.
In the UK, it was pruned to just a few hundred thousand $'s.

Would you have any validation for that.


Here's the UK side of events: http://www.thalidomideuk.com/compensationinfo.htm
Now go do your own Googling for the US side of it.
The last I heard was the US side were getting claims of more than 100x what the UK victims were getting and I really can't be assed to do your legwork for you.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 310
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:31:11 PM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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


Government is a civil construct, a compact between the people governed. You can even look at a family as a government, with the parents being the government and the kids being the citizens. That's all government is.

This is where we differ in our views of government and rights. It seems to me that your rights emanate from your government; that you have no rights unless government makes a law granting them to you. For me, the only reasons for government and laws, is to protect the rights I already have.

Can you see the difference (not asking you to agree)?



I answered you here

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 311
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:41:13 PM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And of course it is among the several. so, yes they can I firmly believe.


sorry, is it a reply to any of my posts? If it is I can't understand what you mean.



it is in general reply to those who firmly believe that the constitution does not allow the fed to handle heathcare, as I point out, a situation 'among the several'. I do not believe you have taken that position.


Correct I didn't, I said that from what I read in your costitution the 10th amendment talks about powers and not services, and I said that even if it were prohibited to the feds the states can do it.

but I don't know what could be your supreme court sentences about it and I know in common law systems this can make a difference, so maybe they ruled the governament has no power to force people living longer with health care.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 312
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:46:01 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Desi, I'm not confusing medical insurance with malpractice insurance at all.
Just the sheer fact that medical insurance needs to cover and encompass any possibility of malpractice and the huge claims that go with it makes it impossibly expensive for an awful lot of US citizens to the point that a lot of them can no longer afford it and have to suffer the consequnces of not having it when they need it.
Cap the awards they have to cover and limit the expenses (and the mega salaries of the CEO's), then limit what they can rip-off in premiums and the whole gammut will become affordable for a whole swathe of people that can't afford it now.


I still think you're mistaking them. Medical insurance covers the cost of care. Malpractice insurance covers the care provider in the case of improper care. Malpractice insurance premiums are spread out in costs just as any other "cost of good" spread out. Medical insurance only covers the portion of malpractice insurance that has been spread into the care provided.

Capping awards, will bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. Reducing the cost of malpractice insurance will reduce the overhead costs for care providers, which will result in a lower cost of services and products. Lower costs of services and products will result in lower medical insurance costs, ie. lower premiums.

I don't know how much the cost of medical insurance will lower due to a lowering of malpractice awards. Most of the caps are on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) and no cap on lost wages and medical bills.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html
    quote:

    The most reliable estimates peg the costs of malpractice litigation at 2 percent of overall health care costs. And while tort reform measures have helped tamp down malpractice premiums, national health spending continues to rise.


http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf
    quote:

    Medical Malpractice Liability
    Real or perceived increases in liability for medical malpractice could potentially raise health care spending directly through higher malpractice insurance premiums and indirectly by leading doctors to attempt to limit their risk of being sued by ordering more tests or procedures than is necessary. The direct effect of malpractice insurance premiums on health care spending is estimated to be rather small because those premiums represent only 1 to 2 percent of total health care expenditures.
    Footnote: Between 1970 and 2000, malpractice premiums increased from 5.5 percent to 7.5 percent of total physician practice expenses.
    Reference: Sloan and Chepke 2008.

    In their recent review of health care reform options, CBO estimated that imposing limits on malpractice awards would lower malpractice premiums by about 6 percent nationwide, but that those savings would have a very modest impact on total health care expenditures of less than 0.2 percent.
    Reference: Congressional Budget Office, December 2008.


There are several more citations in that report. The above starts on page 17 and finishes at the bottom of page 18 in the report.

It's tough to say that simply capping damages would result in a great deal of cost reduction in the cost of services and procedures. I'm not arguing they won't, but I'm not arguing that it would be the cure-all. IMO, it needs to be part of the plan.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 313
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:57:03 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Rights are tied to our being humans.
This is true on the whole but not the whole truth


Thanks for adding that bit o' nothing.

quote:

Rights exist with or without government.
This is true on the whole but not the whole truth.


And again.

quote:

Government authority is only gained by being taken from the individual.
This is opinion unsubstantiated by any facts.
This tries to make the not so subtle shift to associate govt authority with personal rights ....Was that your intention? If not then why insert this shit at all?


That was the intention. It wasn't meant to be subtle.

quote:

Government does not give rights to citizens.
True on the whole but not the whole truth.


Back to adding in those nothing bits.

quote:

Rights given by government are privileges, not rights.
Why the implication that govt gives rights???No one believes that govts do that. Govts. insure that our rights are protected.
Now for some asshats who hide behind the banner of "strict construction" that claim that only the "constitutionally enumerated rights" are the only rights that those in the u.s. have. Well opinions are a lot like assholes and most everyone has one and most everyone feels that theirs works best for them (LMAO!! Never heard that last part before!! Thanks! It will be well used! ). The problem we seem to be having is that some fools feel that the only the rights that anyone has are the ones enumerated in the u.s. constitution.
It has been pointed out to you that the italian constitution recognizes health care as a right. Somehow that seems to offend you...why is that?


Neat thing is that Eulero was stating that they see it as a right and their Constitution says it's a right. Perhaps that's where I get the idea that the Italian government is giving something? Nooooo, couldn't be that...

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 314
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 2:59:16 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
That is a fucking lie, I said no such thing.
Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.


So, under single-payer health care systems, government takes the place of private insurers. Got it. HUGE difference from government being the insurers...

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 315
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 3:04:23 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The only way to lower costs in the US - at this time - is by getting rid of the excess costs within the system that makes a procedure high.
What exactly are those "excess costs"?

Let's see, there's excess administrative costs.
How would you solve this?


Reduce the requirements and paperwork necessary.

quote:

There's excess cost in inflated salaries for medical professionals who can only be licensed by a government-authorized monopoly.
Who would you prefer them to be licensed by?


More than one authority.

quote:

There's excess costs when insurance companies own care providers.
How would you solve this?


Legislation barring insurance companies and hospitals from merging.

quote:

There's excess cost because the cost of malpractice insurance is so much.
Given your stated beliefs on "personal responsibility" how would you solve this?


Cap damages. Serious, thompson. I bet my teen son could answer most of these.

quote:

Need I go on?
That was the purpose of my question...you see I am interogating you as to your position.


I have given you a handful of ways. If you'd like to discuss them, I'm open to it.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 316
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 3:07:38 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yes it is, huge on several levels. Think about it, you got time. Here is a hint for you, the difference will not lie in the type of asinine horseshit quoted below, but in definition, distinction, operation, and commerce at a minimum:

quote:


The distinction is in the definition of the antagonist.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 317
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 3:15:09 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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]

Just for the record (and because I like to be the token liberal that the conservatives ignore), I don't argue that. I argue it is an aesthetic I am more comfortable with than "let them die in the streets". I would, however, be wildly in favor of anyone who is against universal health coverage who at least had the balls to say "and I understand the price of that is poor people die... and they commit crimes on the way to their death."
Charity is not an answer. Trust me, it's my day job nowadays. Charity is largely comprised of the poor helping other poor and the rich helping other rich people. Relying on charity, in my opinion, is simply punting the question.


You might not argue that, Jeff, but I have entered into plenty of discussions and debates with liberals who do.

Oddly enough, there aren't tons of people dying in the streets here, even though we have the system we have.

You are right, that charity isn't taking care of everyone that needs it, but that's what happens when charity is taken over by government and when providers and hospitals merge. Gone are the days of the community care providers (like the ones Eulero talks about). Charity has not kept pace with the growth of care costs, too. Lower care costs will result in charity being capable of handling an awful lot more cases.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to JeffBC)
Profile   Post #: 318
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 3:23:22 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Community (not government) should work towards the best interest of the people within the community. I wholeheartedly agree.
What then would be the function of the city, county (comunity) government?


You are mistaking charity and helping your neighbor with protecting the rights of the governed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Government is a civil construct, a compact between the people governed.
Between the people governed and whom?


Sorry, among the people governed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You can even look at a family as a government, with the parents being the government and the kids being the citizens. That's all government is.
Are you saying that the children had a choice or a vote?

Dictatorships and monarchies are forms of government, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
For me, the only reasons for government and laws, is to protect the rights I already have.
Can you see the difference (not asking you to agree)?
Would you agree that our govt is a construct of "we the people"?
If so then "we the people" say these are a list of our rights and "we the people" are the govt then is the govt saying what our rights are???or are "we the people" saying what our rights are???or is there a difference?


Yes, the Federal government of the US is a construct of "We the People" and the States in the Union.

We can't simply say what are rights and what aren't rights, though. For instance, we can't say that owning a Corvette is a right and that government has to provide that for us.

And, stating that our government is a construct of "We the People" is not the same as saying that our government is We the People. It's a construct. It is, itself, a separate entity.

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 319
RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citiz... - 10/9/2013 3:58:34 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
I firmly believe the US Constitution does not authorize the US Federal Government to provide for the health care of US Citizens.
I continue to hear this peurile whine about what the constitution does not authorize but have yet to hear a mother fucking word about what it does authorize. I hear the droll phrase "enumerated powers" but when pressed for a listing none of the proponents seem knowledgible enough to list them for fear of being "interogated".


I am not your teacher. Do your own homework.

quote:

No matter what the merits of an issue are, if it's not authorized by the US Constitution, there is no authority for the Federal Government to provide it.
What should be done about those unauthorized actions?


Nullification.

quote:

It really is that simple. And, this is not simply limited to health care, either.
Could you provide us a list?


Nice try. Read the manual.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 320
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109