I do not see your argument. Why does every criminal, regardless of how petty or serious or disturbing the crime, have the right to be appointed a lawyer, but every sick American can't be appointed a doctor?
tourette_ticker
Because you will get the quality of medical care as you get legal council from a government appointed lawyer.
Wouldn't want my life in the the hands of either.
MLBoros72s
I'm assuming you could afford better legal and medical representation.
If you're poor, any lawyer/doctor is better then none.
Jackie's Career
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker Because you will get the quality of medical care as you get legal council from a government appointed lawyer.
Wouldn't want my life in the the hands of either.
Amen to that brother. :btu:
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s I do not see your argument. Why does every criminal, regardless of how petty or serious or disturbing the crime, have the right to be appointed a lawyer, but every sick American can't be appointed a doctor?
- THe Supreme Court said the Constitution gives every American that right, if they cannot afford an attorney. I think even this Supreme COurt would have a hard time finding a right to universal health care in the COnstitution.
- DO you honestly want the government running the health care system in total??? As it is, some 80 million AMericans are covered under some sort of government plan...And people wonder why costs keep rising...
- Medicare, the largest government healthcare program is on the fast track to insolvency. When you think of universal coverage, look at Medicare....it is the future right before your eyes.
- if you care just a little about privacy and information the government may or may not gather on individual citizens, why would you ever want all of your health information in the hands of government, at the disposal of corrupt politicians.???
hooknoseitalian
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 - THe Supreme Court said the Constitution gives every American that right, if they cannot afford an attorney. I think even this Supreme COurt would have a hard time finding a right to universal health care in the COnstitution.
- DO you honestly want the government running the health care system in total??? As it is, some 80 million AMericans are covered under some sort of government plan...And people wonder why costs keep rising...
- Medicare, the largest government healthcare program is on the fast track to insolvency. When you think of universal coverage, look at Medicare....it is the future right before your eyes.
- if you care just a little about privacy and information the government may or may not gather on individual citizens, why would you ever want all of your health information in the hands of government, at the disposal of corrupt politicians.???
excellent points. what scares the fuck outta me is how it will empower a pharmaceutical industry already "regulated" by the government, that's killing people with drugs that don't work, pushing drugs loaded with dangerous side effects on us, charging outrageous prices for the drugs that do work, and not making enough progress on cures for diseases that shouldn't even be thought of in this day and age. meanwhile helpful drugs and alternative treatments are illegal and/or considered fraudulent, not enough research is being done to prove otherwise, and what research they do is often suppressed. i'm sure the pharmaceutical industry can't stop cumming in their pants at the mere thought of universal health care.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 - THe Supreme Court said the Constitution gives every American that right, if they cannot afford an attorney. I think even this Supreme COurt would have a hard time finding a right to universal health care in the COnstitution....
I don't think they'd have to look too far -- it's right in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..
:dontknow:
thechosenone
because no one wants to be paying for others that dont deserve the health care. this will no doubt increase the number of illegal aliens coming to america.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull I don't think they'd have to look too far -- it's right in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..
:dontknow:
Ummm it says 'promote' not 'provide' .... and under your apparent reading, we would get government paid maincures, haircuts, massage, shoes, clothes, heat, AC, cable, cell phones.... ect.
However, promote, does NOT mean provide....
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s I do not see your argument. Why does every criminal, regardless of how petty or serious or disturbing the crime, have the right to be appointed a lawyer, but every sick American can't be appointed a doctor?
The Supreme Court made a mistake in forcing States to provide lawyers.
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by thechosenone because no one wants to be paying for others that dont deserve the health care.
To this point - it is highly ironic that the media champion of socialized medicine is Michael Moore.
Do I want to subsidize the piss-poor personal health choices that fat slob has made?
Hell. No.
MLBoros72s
Thank you for raising some points I hadn't considered, but I still feel a nation of the immense wealth of ours could do the poorer citizens a favor and give them health care regardless of insurance.
I agree Big Pharm has to be stopped cold.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Thank you for raising some points I hadn't considered, but I still feel a nation of the immense wealth of ours could do the poorer citizens a favor and give them health care regardless of insurance.
I agree Big Pharm has to be stopped cold.
How about giving every citizen the opportunity to buy the health care that they choose to buy or not buy? How about promoting individual responsibility??
'Big Pharma' has developed drugs that has improved the lives of millions of people, saved the lieves of millions more, while employing thousands of people, and creating wealth for millions of shareholders...
What exactly needs to be stopped???
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Thank you for raising some points I hadn't considered, but I still feel a nation of the immense wealth of ours could do the poorer citizens a favor and give them health care regardless of insurance.
I agree Big Pharm has to be stopped cold.
"Big Pharm" does not need "to be stopped cold. "Big Pharm" brings up life-saving medicines. Where would those afflicted with HIV be today without Big Pharm? Answer - in a grave.
As for the poorer citizens - we already have Medicaid and S-Chip, which covers impovrished families and their children. Medicaid is a large chunk of the federal budget as it is. As NCMike noted, we already pay a massive percentage of the federal budget to Medicare as well. And with the baby boomers retiring, it is estimated by 2030 (or there abouts) that Medicaid and Medicare will constitute 70% of the federal budget.
Look, I'm all for covering those who cannot cover themselves. But I'm not for a massive beaurocracy that will both ration and reduce the quality of care we enjoy.
If health care in this country was taken over by the government, then you would go to the doctor and get 1 diagnosis with nowhere else to turn because it's all one big system run by 1 entity. This is why choice is coveted in this country.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull I don't think they'd have to look too far -- it's right in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..
:dontknow:
We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. 1 Story, Const. 462.
That sound you just heard was Kill Van Kull's head exploding..... I hope he had it wrapped in duct tape...
Kill Van Kull
There is no real arguement against nationalized healthcare -- there are alot of suppositions and "crystal ball" predictions that are made as diversions because we want to protect big profit/corporation.
The fact is that according to the World Health Organization we rank 37th in the world for healthcare. Every country ahead of ours has national healthcare -- we are the only country that has "for profit" medicine.
Healthcare in the US is broken, I don't think anyone can disagree with that...
:)
MissingMentalPatient
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by MissingMentalPatient If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
There's another hysterical, repussican talking point.
We already pay more than 4 times as much as any other country in the world. How could it possibly get any more expensive?
:dontknow:
Luther
How is it going to be paid for?
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There is no real arguement against nationalized healthcare -- there are alot of suppositions and "crystal ball" predictions that are made as diversions because we want to protect big profit/corporation.
The fact is that according to the World Health Organization we rank 37th in the world for healthcare. Every country ahead of ours has national healthcare -- we are the only country that has "for profit" medicine.
Healthcare in the US is broken, I don't think anyone can disagree with that...
:)
Right now the Canadian government is incapable of providing adequate health care (i.e specialized) to all of their citizens. Therefore, they often send patients to the United States for care (that the government pays for, of course).
Please tell me - if Canada cannot provide adequate care for all of its citizens and must send some of it's citizens to the US, where will the US send some of its citizens in need of care if it adopted socialized medicine?
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 That sound you just heard was Kill Van Kull's head exploding..... I hope he had it wrapped in duct tape...
After almost 200 years they "discovered" that in the Constitution. Then they discovered the right of the accused to be read his rights. Then they discovered Abortion rights. Then they discovered a right to homosexual sodomy.
It's really something the things that can be found in the Constitution when a Justice puts his mind to it. It's quite amazing these things were not discovered 200 years ago. Oh thats right, they wrote the document 200 years ago, it did not come alive until 150 years later...
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There is no real arguement against nationalized healthcare -- there are alot of suppositions and "crystal ball" predictions that are made as diversions because we want to protect big profit/corporation.
The fact is that according to the World Health Organization we rank 37th in the world for healthcare. Every country ahead of ours has national healthcare -- we are the only country that has "for profit" medicine.
Healthcare in the US is broken, I don't think anyone can disagree with that...
:)
Costa Rica was ranked ahead of the US....how many people do you think rush to Costa Rica for 'superior' health care????
Our health care system is not perfect, and would improve with LESS government involvement. MORE government is NOT the answer... it will only make the situation much worse.
VacateTheWord
Quote: Originally posted by Luther How is it going to be paid for?
Hillary Clinton will go after your hard-earned wages:
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There's another hysterical, repussican talking point.
We already pay more than 4 times as much as any other country in the world. How could it possibly get any more expensive?
:dontknow:
The federal government could take over the entire system...thats how.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord Right now the Canadian government is incapable of providing adequate health care (i.e specialized) to all of their citizens. Therefore, they often send patients to the United States for care (that the government pays for, of course).
Please tell me - if Canada cannot provide adequate care for all of its citizens and must send some of it's citizens to the US, where will the US send some of its citizens in need of care if it adopted socialized medicine?
There's a few Canadians on this very board that would say bullshit. Do you have any proof?
Either way, some Americans go to Canada for certain specialties, Canadians come to America for others.
Howard was just talking about how Suzanne Sommers traveled to Germany for cancer treatment.
Bottom line is the statement "the Canadian government is incapable of providing adequate health care (i.e specialized) to all of their citizens" is a bold faced lie and you are very naive to believe/post it.
After almost 200 years they "discovered" that in the Constitution. Then they discovered the right of the accused to be read his rights. Then they discovered Abortion rights. Then they discovered a right to homosexual sodomy.
It's really something the things that can be found in the Constitution when a Justice puts his mind to it. It's quite amazing these things were not discovered 200 years ago. Oh thats right, they wrote the document 200 years ago, it did not come alive until 150 years later...
Especially interesting since the founders INCLUDED a mechanism for changing the document. How it can be a living document, while the process for change is clearly defined is beyond me. The very fact that all of these 'rights' have been found only show that those promoting these supposed rights have no respect for the Constitution itself, since they seek to bypass the clearly defined amendment process.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Especially interesting since the founders INCLUDED a mechanism for changing the document. How it can be a living document, while the process for change is clearly defined is beyond me. The very fact that all of these 'rights' have been found only show that those promoting these supposed rights have no respect for the Constitution itself, since they seek to bypass the clearly defined amendment process.
Yep. And, people like these gifts. I wonder how they will like it when these things are taken away? They can be. They are not in the Constitution. That is why confirmation hearings are so insane these days. They don't want someone on there who will take away these gifts. They want people who will give them the Constitution they want, not the one they have.
zimmie
Just look at the last program the government began....a rather simple idea....
provide passengers and crew on domestic air carriers with a safe flying environment....
the TSA.....what has it become?
7 years later...what a fucking mess
a financial boondoggle, questionable security, outrageous and nonsensical regulations
but thats ok, thats airline safety.....
I'm sure a much more complicated idea (universal health care) such as providing your families health care will be responsive, responsible and cost efficient from that same government FOR 300 MILLION PEOPLE huh?
FUCKING IDIOTS...
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There's a few Canadians on this very board that would say bullshit. Do you have any proof?
Either way, some Americans go to Canada for certain specialties, Canadians come to America for others.
Howard was just talking about how Suzanne Sommers traveled to Germany for cancer treatment.
Bottom line is the statement "the Canadian government is incapable of providing adequate health care (i.e specialized) to all of their citizens" is a bold faced lie and you are very naive to believe/post it.
Quote: A Canadian woman hospitalized in the United States after her appendix burst last month cannot return home for care because of a provincial shortage of available intensive care beds.
Arlene Meeks, 68, was holidaying in Indio, Calif., with her husband Wilf, 77, when she fell ill. At first she thought it was a flu bug, but after two visits to hospital for antibiotics and X-rays, she was told her appendix had ruptured.
The problem had been left for so long that her gallbladder became infected and had to be removed, her daughter Kim Meeks said.
Since her surgery at Indio, near Palm Springs, on Dec. 17, she has been hooked up to ventilators, intravenous lines and a catheter.
"She's frustrated as hell; she'd like to get home," Kim Meeks said Tuesday. "She's been ready to be transported for two weeks but supposedly there are no beds for her."
Quote: A rare set of identical quadruplets, born this week to a Calgary woman at a Montana hospital, are in good health and two of them were strong enough to be transported back here Thursday.
The naturally conceived baby girls -- Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia -- were delivered by caesarean section Sunday in Great Falls, their weights ranging between two pounds, six ounces and two pounds, 15 ounces.
Their mother, Calgarian Karen Jepp, was transferred to Benefis Hospital in Montana last week when she began showing signs of going into labour, and no Canadian hospital had enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies.
Quote:
TOFINO, B.C. - A pregnant 29-year-old Tofino woman says she may be forced to spend two more months in a U.S. hospital because a bed is not available closer to home.
how you retards can criticize ron paul like you do and then gush over the importance of following the constitution is beyond me.
zimmie
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There's a few Canadians on this very board that would say bullshit. Do you have any proof?
Either way, some Americans go to Canada for certain specialties, Canadians come to America for others.
Howard was just talking about how Suzanne Sommers traveled to Germany for cancer treatment.
Bottom line is the statement "the Canadian government is incapable of providing adequate health care (i.e specialized) to all of their citizens" is a bold faced lie and you are very naive to believe/post it.
:cool:
well then maybe you can explain why Canada has reverted back to allowing private health insurance again?.....
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by hooknoseitalian how you retards can criticize ron paul like you do and then gush over the importance of following the constitution is beyond me.
Not me. I don't criticize Ron Paul. He is not perfect but he's better than anyone running for President.
Quote: Private health insurance exists in Ontario for pets but not people. It makes little sense that as parents we can provide more timely and flexible care for our kittens than our kids. The government should move to end this inequity both to relieve the burden on the existing health care model but, more importantly, to provide patients greater choice and timeliness.
When defenders of the publicly-funded health care monopoly say that Ontarians enjoy the right to public health care, what they’re really saying is that Ontarians enjoy the right to be on a wait list to receive publicly-funded health care. This sorry fact is being challenged in court by two brave individuals who want the freedom to choose a health care provider not dictated by the government. For the sake of our health, the government of Ontario should get out of their way, not fight the case and implement what is being demanded.
A lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court on September 5th by two brain-tumour patients alleges Ontario’s injunction against private health care alternatives violates their right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Quote: Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Is universal healthcare an illegal, dangerous monopoly? One Ontario lawsuit argues 'yes'
Adolfo Flora, whose first legal appeal in his case against the government-operated Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) was dismissed last year, is back at it again. His lawyers insist that Ontario's universal healthcare system is putting citizens' lives in danger. (OHIP provides universal healthcare insurance; OHIP has a monopoly over healthcare insurance; monopolies are detrimental to the public good; ergo OHIP is detrimental to the public good -- so goes Mr Flora's argument.)
Mr Flora is now appealing the earlier case's dismissal in the Ontario Court of Appeal. (To read about yesterday's events at the courthouse, check out coverage from the Star and the National Post.)
In 1999, Mr Flora, a retired science teacher, was diagnosed with liver cancer. "He was told he had two weeks to live, to get his affairs in order," Rick Baker, the president of Vancouver private medical access firm Timely Medical Alternatives told me last year about the case. Mr Flora needed a partial liver transplant, but his doctors told him he was unlikely to survive and a deceased-donor liver was near-impossible to procure. He travelled to England and received the partial transplant from his brother — at a cost of $447,000. OHIP refuses to reimburse him.
Mr Flora's lawyer, Mark Freiman, argued yesterday in court, "When the government monopolizes health care and effectively seals off the exits so that access to private care is illusory to all but the wealthiest... the government is responsible for the impairment of the right to life and security of the person."
"The appellant obtained the treatment he wanted..." retorted government counsel Janet Minor. "Clearly there is nothing the government did to deprive Mr. Flora of his ability to obtain treatment... What the appellant seeks in this case is an economic benefit for himself."
Mr Flora's case is relatively uncharted territory in Canadian jurisprudence.
The famous Chaoulli v Québec decision of 2005, which overturned that province's ban on private insurance based on the rights to life and security of the person enumerated in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the only precedent for this type of claim and it remains to be seen whether the Chaoulli decision will be extended to other provinces beyond Quebec. If that were to happen, the five basic tenets of the Canada Health Act -- public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability, and accessibility -- would seem to be due for a rewrite.
I don't expect that KVK will be responding to me....this would require an extended answer, and he is only capable of quick little 1 or 2 line posts which rarely answer the question at hand... Most likely, he is hiding in the closet somewhere, afraid to come out..
ICE CUBAN
I go abroad for health care. Fairer costs, better personal care, better doctors etc.
Most of those health plans you get offered at work are bullshit. You pay in every week yet you still have to then pay another fee for certain things. Yes it's usually a low fee (I was paying 20$ for visits 100$ for emergency etc.) but it just pissed me off that not only do they take money every week for something I use once a year but I then have to pay extra when I actually use it. Then to top it off the doctors are all doing assembly line style check ups where they try and make it up on volume so you end up getting piss poor attention from a guy who sees a ton of patients a day. So I canceled my insurance.
I don't agree with everybody getting health care for free. Nobody should pay for the slobs that make up the majority of this country. However there is no excuse why health care should cost so much to begin with. The truth is that care givers and doctors don't run the health care system anymore. They are run by boards and corporations who want to make profit at any cost. Nothing wrong with making money but when you do it via something people can't really live without, like health care, then it's just a form of extortion in my opinion.
Somewhere between government run health care and corporate run health care there could be an answer. I don't suck the government tit and I definitely don't suck corporate cock like many of you here.
One or the other has many flaws and doesn't address the real issue...HEALTH and CARE.
hooknoseitalian
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Not me. I don't criticize Ron Paul. He is not perfect but he's better than anyone running for President.
i commend you for thinking rationally for a change. i just assumed you were scared of him, too. ;)
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie well then maybe you can explain why Canada has reverted back to allowing private health insurance again?.....
We should invade Canada. Just those over 40 should participate in this war.
:)
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by hooknoseitalian i commend you for thinking rationally for a change. i just assumed you were scared of him, too. ;)
I always think rationally. It's just sometimes people do not like it.
Kill Van Kull
NCMike> I never denied that some Canadians come here for healthcare just as you cannot deny that some Americans travel abroad for healthcare -- we have one right here in this discussion admit it.
The fact is that the US ranks far too low compared to other industrialized and even some non-industrialized nations for anyone not to see that our system is broken.
The "crystal ball" predictions of doom-and-gloom are cute but in reality, drastic and immediate change is in order.
;)
modeams
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie well then maybe you can explain why Canada has reverted back to allowing private health insurance again?.....
What does that mean? See, cause every other industrialized nation came to their sense ages ago in really accepting the sanctity of life.... by offering them medical care... doesn't mean that if you are so inclined you can pay for a private doctor. Every country that has public heath care offers that option, christ. Get off this socialist paranoia.
modeams
For those really interested in pure statistical analysis of life expectancy and GNP per capita take a look at this software just purchased by google. You can isolate the US, and see how are relative spending doesn't necessarily increase our life expectancy. http://www.gapminder.org/
"To have a fair chance in life, everyone needs public services, practical things like safe drinking water, schools and health services.
It's also very important that information about these services as well as the need for them amongst the population is readily available in useful form. We need good information in order to provide good public service.
Statistics are needed on the access and quality of those services. Both for those who provide it and those who have he right to demand access to it."
NCMike> I know you're not so foolish as to believe that no one in America has ever sued a health insurance company on the exact same premise as the case you cited in Ontario.
Healthcare inherently carries a certain degree of patient discontent -- focusing on that aspect in any ONE system is insincere and unrealistic.
You're only making yourself look stupid and desperate.
:)
relsh
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s I do not see your argument. Why does every criminal, regardless of how petty or serious or disturbing the crime, have the right to be appointed a lawyer, but every sick American can't be appointed a doctor?
you pose the question as if those against a universal plan are against the notion of everyone getting heathcare, when in reality it's simply a matter of disagreeing on how to accomplish this task.
first of all, nonprofit facilities and government-run hospitals provide healthcare to those who don't have insurance.....and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service to anyone. so the premise of your camparison to the justice system is flawed.......the poor get lower quality lawyers, which is currently what they get with healthcare. they simply can't get "the best healthcare money can buy"....and that won't change much under any system
also, people in a free society shouldn't be forced to pay for health insurance (not their own and especially not other people's). this is not like car insurance, where your payment protects others from your mistakes/accidents, as much as it protects you....health insurance is a strictly personal benefit, that you have the right to pay into or not. a universal system forces one to pay into a healthcare system they may not deem worthy of paything for. that is an infringement on ones' personal rights........which therefore excludes healthcare from being considered a natural human right. since healthcare is not a natural human right, then there is no reason to make it universal and run by the central government, if other means of providing it affordably can be achieved.
Stonewall
It is quite a shame that citizens of this country just presume that the National Government can legislate this universal health care. Of course we complain when government does things we do not like.
Everything the Left likes does not mean it's constitutional. Everything you dislike is not unconstitutional. It does not work that way.
The constitution is made useless when we allow the National Government to do as it chooses. Citizens even applaud as the politicians tell us of their plans.
We better make sure we put people on the Supreme Court who will give the majority what it wants. The constitution we want. That is the exact opposite of what the constitution is about, protecting the minority, and I don't mean race or gender. The minority view. Protection against the majority.
The "United States" was created as a thing, not a place. It is a collection of States that are united. United by a constitution. One that creates a thing called the "United States". The document also created a National Government. A government with enumerated powers. Those powers not enumerated belong to the people and or the States. The 14th Amendment changed the thing to a place, but that does not mean that any more power is delegated to the national government. Just those enumerated.
If you want abortion, homosexual sodomy, a woman's right to vote... go get an amendment. Oh thats right they did get one that allows a women the right to vote. That generation must have understood the constitution. Today we would just expect the Court to give that right, or the Congress. And, they would. No doubt about that... what is worse than not allowing woman the right to vote? Oh no we would deal with that right in the Supreme Court and those originalists voting against it would be considered bigots and hateful. They should have voted for that right.
But, today we just want the government to make these decisions for us. We want health care, just do it. No amendment...
And, those against this insanity, they are just dumb, don't they know how wonderful this will be? Don't they care? They are hateful, I think...
MLBoros72s
Christ you guys type too much.
Concise points are much more likely to be read.
I see the most prevalent argument against it is a lack of faith in the central government.
If the government is competent and reasonable, doesn't that completely change the argument?
(i.e. Dubya was a retard. Couldn't a smart person actually accomplish this?)
Gangster Talk
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull We already pay more than 4 times as much as any other country in the world. How could it possibly get any more expensive?
:dontknow:
Regulate it further, raise the requirements for bringing new medications to market and let more lawsuits go to the courts which will end up raising the doctors liability premiums. Begin the process of deregulation and impose a 'loser pays' mechanism to litigation and we may see the situation improve for everyone.
tourette_ticker
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
The fact is that according to the World Health Organization we rank 37th in the world for healthcare. Every country ahead of ours has national healthcare -- we are the only country that has "for profit" medicine.
:)
The fact is the the WHO ranking is a political document. One of the several non-medical criteria in the rankings is how health care is payed for. Counties with state sponsored medicine automatically rank higher than private systems.
CrackHead_Fan
All one needs to do is spend an afternoon at your local U.S. Post Office or state Division of Motor Vehicles to see how efficient government-run programs are. Do we really want these same people in charge of our medical decisions?
DUDE-HERE
i would like to see a trial and if they are gonna do anything at least try this 1st
dental and eye care ( glasses ) i would be for that right now ...that would at least get the apparratis in place.
modeams
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan All one needs to do is spend an afternoon at your local U.S. Post Office or state Division of Motor Vehicles to see how efficient government-run programs are. Do we really want these same people in charge of our medical decisions?
No, just our borders and children's education. :rolleyes:
NickNuke
I don't need no gubment health plan.
Anyone who is anyone in the U.K. stays out of the Casualty and PAYS for private doctoring. It's a fucking M*A*S*H* unit. Folks in Canada waiting 8 months for standard procedures.
Say no to Universal Health Care. Say yes to more privatization, lawsuit limits and eradication of class action suits. Say yes to drug patent extension and a way for drug companies to maximize profits on new drugs so that assembly line of pharma breakthoughs continue.
The facts are we are living longer, are a more active and healthier nation. Support programs that minimize smoking, drug use and unhealthy lifestyles.
modeams
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker The fact is the the WHO ranking is a political document. One of the several non-medical criteria in the rankings is how health care is payed for. Counties with state sponsored medicine automatically rank higher than private systems.
Says who or where? I have never seen any statistical data, and I've spent hours studying it through school, that in any way increases the score of public health care systems. Please cite a source, tyvm.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by CrackHead_Fan All one needs to do is spend an afternoon at your local U.S. Post Office or state Division of Motor Vehicles to see how efficient government-run programs are. Do we really want these same people in charge of our medical decisions?
...and what about an afternoon with an F-18 fighterpilot? an Army surgeon? Or an afternoon with NASA scientists and the space shuttle -- lunch with a government nuclear physicist? a meet and greet with the men who created modern jet engine/aviation?
:dontknow:
You're a gullible, kool-aid drinking, parrot repeating idiot sheep.
NickNuke
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull ...and what about an afternoon with an F-18 fighterpilot? an Army surgeon? Or an afternoon with NASA scientists and the space shuttle -- lunch with a government nuclear physicist? a meet and greet with the men who created modern jet engine/aviation?
:dontknow:
You're a gullible, kool-aid drinking, parrot repeating idiot sheep.
No..No.. you're obsfucating this. Don't try to confuse.
First of all, the LEFT constantly criticizes the military as a WHOLE. NASA is bloated and overspends.. No one is saying anything about a particular scientist, soldier or person. We are talking about this on a macro scale.
Omnipotent_1
Quote: Originally posted by ICE CUBAN I go abroad for health care. Fairer costs, better personal care, better doctors etc.
Most of those health plans you get offered at work are bullshit. You pay in every week yet you still have to then pay another fee for certain things. Yes it's usually a low fee (I was paying 20$ for visits 100$ for emergency etc.) but it just pissed me off that not only do they take money every week for something I use once a year but I then have to pay extra when I actually use it. Then to top it off the doctors are all doing assembly line style check ups where they try and make it up on volume so you end up getting piss poor attention from a guy who sees a ton of patients a day. So I canceled my insurance.
I don't agree with everybody getting health care for free. Nobody should pay for the slobs that make up the majority of this country. However there is no excuse why health care should cost so much to begin with. The truth is that care givers and doctors don't run the health care system anymore. They are run by boards and corporations who want to make profit at any cost. Nothing wrong with making money but when you do it via something people can't really live without, like health care, then it's just a form of extortion in my opinion.
Somewhere between government run health care and corporate run health care there could be an answer. I don't suck the government tit and I definitely don't suck corporate cock like many of you here.
One or the other has many flaws and doesn't address the real issue...HEALTH and CARE.
You are confusing health care with health insurance. That program you buy into at work is, indeed, insurance. You're not actually paying into healthcare unless you happen to invest in a health savings account, arguably the best investment anyone can make in ones longterm health care save a healthy lifestyle.
As it presently stands, everyone already has access to health care, whether they pay for it or not. Part of the reason hospital costs are grossly inflated are because of two things: the amount of free care they give to the poor and homeless, and the number of malpractice lawsuits they have to deal with.
These polls that compare worldwide health care really do not compare the quality of that care, or the speed at which citizens receive care, but compare the access for it's citizens. These polls all lean heavily in favor of socialized medicine.
The only advantage to socialized medicine that I see is in the cost control that is inherent to such program. A government with deeper pockets and ostensibly greater budgetary concern has more leverage in keeping drug costs in check. They buy the drugs instead of you and me. This is why drugs are so much cheaper in Canada. Big Pharma most certainly does not want healthcare nationalized. The bottom line to their shareholders trumps any benefit to the consumer.
All of that said, you know who would end up paying for the brunt of the cost of socialized medicine. The same people who are always demonized by the socialists, the wealthy. Sorry, but the libertarian in me just cannot abide by it. I keep myself healthy. IMO, this is the greater responsibility of the people. Nobody should have a "right" to health care if they cannot take care of themselves. You look at the obesity rate in this country and tell me why those of us who are healthy should pitch in for those who are not and do not care to be? Health insurance should be scaled like life or car insurance. Every 10 pounds you are over weight costs you an extra $100 a year. Smoking, drinking and drug use are automatic $1000 surcharge. Some system like that.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke No..No.. you're obsfucating this. Don't try to confuse.
First of all, the LEFT constantly criticizes the military as a WHOLE. NASA is bloated and overspends.. No one is saying anything about a particular scientist, soldier or person. We are talking about this on a macro scale.
Really? The Social Security Administation has been cited as one of the most efficiently run organizations in the WORLD, bar none.
Right-wing talking points generally have little to do with reality.
:cool:
lao tzu
I LOVE MY FREE HEALTH CARE....
NickNuke
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull Really? The Social Security Administation has been cited as one of the most efficiently run organizations in the WORLD, bar none.
Right-wing talking points generally have little to do with reality.
:cool:
As does making absolutisms.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke As does making absolutisms.
Exactly my point, thank you.
:)
NickNuke
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull Exactly my point, thank you.
:)
I am unaware where I made one. I was merely pointing out your examples were not relevant to the posted subject.
Basically, we're saying the "forest is on fire", and your response is "No it's not, these trees are fine". Your examples are illogical.
Kill Van Kull
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke I am unaware where I made one. I was merely pointing out your examples were not relevant to the posted subject.
Basically, we're saying the "forest is on fire", and your response is "No it's not, these trees are fine". Your examples are illogical.
Not really. The "absolutism" that was made was the right-wing mantra that the government is incapable of compentence. I offered examples of government capability.
I've said again and again that no matter how you slice it, our healthcare system is broken. How does that translate to "the trees are fine?"
:dontknow:
NickNuke
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull Not really. The "absolutism" that was made was the right-wing mantra that the government is incapable of compentence. I offered examples of government capability.
I've said again and again that no matter how you slice it, our healthcare system is broken. How does that translate to "the trees are fine?"
:dontknow:
I thought you were being facetious about social security. Are you saying it's in a good state? It will be non existant by the time we are eligible to collect. Where have you been?
zimmie
Social Security being used as a model of government efficiency?....LMAO....the fucking system is fucking approaching bankruptcy.....LMAO
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie Social Security being used as a model of government efficiency?....LMAO....the fucking system is fucking approaching bankruptcy.....LMAO
LMAO...it crumbled under Republican rule...LMAO
zimmie
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s LMAO...it crumbled under Republican rule...LMAO
hey dumbass, the Republicans recognized is was fucked up and tried to fix it....Democrats said no
I don 't give a fuck, I didn't contribute to it, I won't be fucked by it....
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie hey dumbass, the Republicans recognized is was fucked up and tried to fix it....Democrats said no
I don 't give a fuck, I didn't contribute to it, I won't be fucked by it....
Doesn't bother me either. Schadenfreude shouldn't be something you have towards your own government.
zimmie
I take no pleasure from others fucked by this. We have over 70 trillion dollars worth of entitlements promised by our government. Money they are unprepared to pay out. I count on none of it and would recommend others don't either.....
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie Social Security being used as a model of government efficiency?....LMAO....the fucking system is fucking approaching bankruptcy.....LMAO
Social Security is what people should look at when thinking Universal Health Care. It too was done without Constitutional backing. With no rules to live by, other than those rules the government gave itself.
With an amendment to the constitution we could have imposed limits and ensured that no money was spent other than for the program itself. Social Security could have been done correctly. Now the money is spent, no accountability exists.
Now the Left wants to give the government power with no input from the States or the people. No accountability will exist. No rules except that which the government wants to pretend.
MLBoros72s
Pharmaceutical companies have one obligation: To increase the profits of shareholders.
I think a regulated healthcare system could actually lead to cure for diseases, instead of more and more pills that just slowly kill you.
grege345
How can Govt run Health care when they are busy with athletes :mad:
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Pharmaceutical companies have one obligation: To increase the profits of shareholders.
I think a regulated healthcare system could actually lead to cure for diseases, instead of more and more pills that just slowly kill you.
Get an amendment. Prohibit the government from dictating how citizens live their life. No outlawing of tobacco or alcohol. Or any activity that is unhealthy. Give them no power in that regard. Those are some ideas.
Get rid of the income tax.
Have the government collect revenue from a national sales tax. In the amendment put 5% or whatever number we begin with. Then prohibit the government from raising it. If they need to raise it they will have to come back to the voter and get 2/3rds of the States to agree on a specific percentage. The people decide. Prohibit the sin tax.
We must put this animal back in it's cage...
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall Get an amendment. Prohibit the government from dictating how citizens live their life. No outlawing of tobacco or alcohol. Or any activity that is unhealthy. Give them no power in that regard. Those are some ideas.
Get rid of the income tax.
Have the government collect revenue from a national sales tax. In the amendment put 5% or whatever number we begin with. Then prohibit the government from raising it. If they need to raise it they will have to come back to the voter and get 2/3rds of the States to agree on a specific percentage. The people decide. Prohibit the sin tax.
We must put this animal back in it's cage...
I'm not sure if this is your opinion or in satire...
Either way I agree.
gazill
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull There's another hysterical, repussican talking point.
We already pay more than 4 times as much as any other country in the world. How could it possibly get any more expensive?
:dontknow:
Well, in 2007 the budget for health (assuming health means to NIH, etc.) and for Medicare alone was over $640 billion. That is for one year. What was the population in 2007? How responsible with taxpayer money are politicians, on either side of the aisle? Use your imagination as to how much more expensive it can be.
By the way, please post examples of how we pay 4 times more. Which countries, and how does the quality of healthcare compare? I have not been in an ex-US hospital in 10 years, but what I saw in a hospital in France, and in Germany, made me happy I had the US healthcare system.
gazill
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s Pharmaceutical companies have one obligation: To increase the profits of shareholders.
I think a regulated healthcare system could actually lead to cure for diseases, instead of more and more pills that just slowly kill you.
The healthcare system is highly regulated, and has been since at least 1906 (if not before), pharmaceutical companies included. Pills are something that slowly kill you? Ask the survivors of breast cancer how the pills slowly kill. How is that small pox been treating you? I am sure plenty of old men who couldn't get it up are happy about Viagra.
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s I'm not sure if this is your opinion or in satire...
Either way I agree.
That is my opinion of what people should do if they want universal health care.
If the government decides on their own to create this, and we allow that, then we will get what we deserve.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke I am unaware where I made one.
First of all, the LEFT constantly criticizes the military as a WHOLE.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall That is my opinion of what people should do if they want universal health care.
If the government decides on their own to create this, and we allow that, then we will get what we deserve.
it is good that 70% of people disagree with you
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie hey dumbass, the Republicans recognized is was fucked up and tried to fix it....
:lol: :lol: :lol:
you forgot the quotation marks in "fixed it" :jj:
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke Basically, we're saying the "forest is on fire", and your response is "No it's not, these trees are fine". Your examples are illogical.
drama queen
Stonewall
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen it is good that 70% of people disagree with you
Really, 30% agree with me? That can't be true. I wish it was.
Omnipotent_1
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Now the Left wants to give the government power with no input from the States or the people. No accountability will exist. No rules except that which the government wants to pretend.
You think only the left want this? Bush has tried to bypass the Constitution at every turn with his "executive privileges" and Patriot Act domestic wiretapping. These neocon Republicans are every bit as much big government as those on the left. It's why they stifle real conservatives like Paul.
emtfromny2
Quote: Originally posted by MLBoros72s I do not see your argument. Why does every criminal, regardless of how petty or serious or disturbing the crime, have the right to be appointed a lawyer, but every sick American can't be appointed a doctor?
You are comparing apples to oranges for one. For second, a little document called the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights requires a defendant gets a lawyer.
modeams
Quote: Originally posted by emtfromny2 You are comparing apples to oranges for one. For second, a little document called the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights requires a defendant gets a lawyer.
No, not at all. Bless the founding fathers and our constitution. That above all else should factor in any legislative decision, but with health care this is not the case.
There is just no way they could have anticipate the impact proactive and regular care would have on a society. There is nothing prohibiting it in the constitution because despite many assurances of foreshadowing in our constitution, this clearly was not one of them.
It needs to happen.
mingmen
Quote: Originally posted by emtfromny2 You are comparing apples to oranges for one. For second, a little document called the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights requires a defendant gets a lawyer.
He said "why not". After all, the constitution does not forbid it.
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by modeams No, not at all. Bless the founding fathers and our constitution. That above all else should factor in any legislative decision, but with health care this is not the case.
There is just no way they could have anticipate the impact proactive and regular care would have on a society. There is nothing prohibiting it in the constitution because despite many assurances of foreshadowing in our constitution, this clearly was not one of them.
It needs to happen.
+100 for answering for me.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull NCMike> I never denied that some Canadians come here for healthcare just as you cannot deny that some Americans travel abroad for healthcare -- we have one right here in this discussion admit it.
The fact is that the US ranks far too low compared to other industrialized and even some non-industrialized nations for anyone not to see that our system is broken.
The "crystal ball" predictions of doom-and-gloom are cute but in reality, drastic and immediate change is in order.
;)
SOme Americans travel abroad for healthcare by CHOICE....many Canadians come here for health care out of necessity, because the health care is NOT available in Canada. WHy is that?? Because there are no market forces working in a healthcare system is run by the government and paid for by the government.
If you had a child (I don't know if you do or don't) and he/she was sick, would you rather it be cared for in COsta Rica, which ranked higher than the US on that flawed/biased survey you keep referencing, or would you rather that child be cared for here??
I agree that drastic change is in order...the government needs to get out of the healthcare business/market, and allow the market to force the best care at the most inexpensive price.
MLBoros72s
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 SOme Americans travel abroad for healthcare by CHOICE....many Canadians come here for health care out of necessity, because the health care is NOT available in Canada. WHy is that?? Because there are no market for
