quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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?

• 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: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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...

I think you're missing the label here Desi.
Government funded healthcare does not take the place of private insurers.
If you want to take out private insurance, you can, and it would be in addition to what the government's healthcare system provides. In many cases, that could get you a shorter waiting time for non-essential surgery and probably a private room; but not much else. You'll almost certainly be seen by the same NHS doctor/consultant and have the same theatre team in the OR and prep room.
But here's where the two systems, NHS and private, are completely different in the same scenario....
If you went into hospital for whatever reason and whilst you were in the OR the surgical team found another, quite serious problem, or additional complication, here's what happens here under the two systems -
Under a private insurance admission, if that additional problem was part of a pre-existing condition excluded by your private insurance cover, you'd come out of OR still with that problem even if your life was at risk from having it.
Under the NHS or single-payer system, because the staff and the treatment are being paid for by taxes, they would also fix that pre-existing condition (assuming it was fixable).
Now that's a huge difference in application of the same service by the same people in the same hospital but funded by two different systems of healthcare.
Plus, of course, in a single-payer system, patients don't have to worry about rising premiums or affordability of healthcare in the first place because it's completely free at the point of delivery.

• 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: Politesub53

Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Oh I understand all right. I keep hearing that America is "The greatest democracy in the world" both in here, and in the media. Now you are telling me it isnt because some dude in a video says it isnt. "By the people, for the people, of the people" couldnt be a plainer statement if you tried.

quote:

UNITED STATES

Government type: Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

*sighs* indeed. It doesnt alter the fact many of the same people insisting on the government not giving you rights, claims their rights are written down in the constitution.

quote:

That's CIA as in Central Intelligence Agency and not Culinary Institute of America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
No it doesnt..... Insurance companies are out to make a profit from health services. The government, at least our one, is not. All the NHS hope to do is break even or if possible make a bit to re-invest. Not a shred of profit involved.
Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation.

• 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: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Interesting points on Rights not being made by the government, given the governments role in the Constitution, whicch Republicans claims, gives them rights. Its kind of an oxymoron situation.

It may seem oxymoronic, but from the words you've used it sounds as if that is due to you not understanding correctly. The following link is to a short video* that may help clarify... if you really wish to know. (If the link doesn't work properly, you should start watching around the 3:14 point.)

Constitutional Rights

*Disclaimer: I'm not really familiar with this guy. I understand he was big in the Libertarian Party, but since I'm not Libertarian and he's not been active in politics for some time, I have no idea whether he'd be considered reasonable in his ideas or off in left field somewhere. I will tell you that this video does present a very good explanation of the subject at hand as I was taught and as I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

Really? Why do I strongly suspect that in actual reality here in the US the actions your describing would result in more yachts for CEO's? I understand your supply & demand theory, I just think it's more theoretical than factual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

You and Lucy can continue to shake your heads sadly together. I don't have a problem with that.

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?

I firmly believe the US Constitution does not authorize the US Federal Government to provide for the health care of US Citizens. 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. It really is that simple. And, this is not simply limited to health care, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
There is no need to resort to ideological or constitutional arguments (though I believe that the US Govt has a (constitutional?) role to ensure the welfare of its citizens, which to my mind, is meaningless unless it includes healthcare )

quote:

People are dying in their tens of thousands every year. Every one of those deaths is avoidable and unnecessary.
The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone.
Why is the US Right so determined to ensure that Americans continue to die completely unnecessary deaths in their tens of thousands every year?

• 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: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The easiest, cheapest and most efficient way of preventing those deaths is through a universal healthcare system. A universal healthcare system is justified on pragmatic grounds alone.

This is, by far, the best justification for universal healthcare.
As it stands, the US govt already spends as much as other western govts on healthcare... and the total spend is more than double. The system is properly fucked up.
And no - healthcare outcomes aren't that different.
And no - lawsuits and defensive medicine don't have much of an impact on total cost.

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