1

Please tell me how the two statements are related??? The Democrats did Obamacare all by themselves, not one Reublican voted for it and it still passed. That makes the Democrats the perpetrators of the biggest fraud in American history, with the exception, of course, of Obama's forged birth certificate. But that is a different store for another time.

0

Please tell me how the two statements are related???

If you're referring to my comment, the relation between the two statements is that in order to make each of them, one must believe something that is obviously not true. In other words, one can blame Republicans for actions of a Democrat-controlled Congress in the same way that one can believe that Bill Gates is thousands of times more wealthy than he actually is.

In short, I'm agreeing with you.

If you're referring to someone else's comment, I suggest you clarify whose comment you mean.

Edited by arkoenig: n/a

4

well, in order to be a leftist you have to believe in the wildest lies and fantasies possible as that's all that can ever make socialism/communism look like something you want to live under...

Yah, the "failed experiment" theory is a nice and constantly repeating one. Guess what kids, socialism/communism failed in every single case it was implemented, every single case where private ownership, responsibility, choice, free markets, was abandoned.
So in the light of hundreds of such failed implementations, you still hold that "if only I did it it would work" and "they weren't real socialists/communists" despite the people implementing it being the ones who literally wrote the books on it is a sensible theory to hold on to?

Reality check: would you be willing to give up everything you own "for the collective", literally go whereever you're needed and do whatever needs to be done there with no more compensation than the minimum amount of food and clothing needed to survive another day, sleeping in barracks with no privacy, never having a day off from work (as such would constitute ownership and privilege over your peers, can't have that in a true communist society) (not that you'd have anything to do on that day as you'd have nothing to do it with)?
That's what you're rooting for. With a Big Government to decide who goes where to do what at what time and how much he should produce during that time or face having that food, clothing, and shelter withdrawn because he didn't do his patriotic duty.
Sure, if you fall ill there's free healthcare, but only enough so that you can get back to work, and the people doing it are living under those same squallid condition and no real training (they too just went there as ordered to do the job they were ordered to do, the government resource planning council doesn't favour anyone for a job so that person cutting out your appendix probably has no medical training as medical training would be a privilege and there are no privileges in the commune).

If you think that's farfetched, it isn't.
It's essentially the system implemented by the most true communists ever, Russia before the civil war between the reds and the whites, China before the cultural revolution, and Cambodia under Pol Pot.

That's TRUE communism at work. All those places later watered down the system with some market forces because it just doesn't work. And then found that that doesn't work either, that either you introduce more and more freedoms (especially economic ones) like China is doing, you whither and die as a nation (which happened to Cambodia), or you collapse and face internal revolution by people who want complete freedom (as happened in the USSR).

Votes + Comments
A year and half they all were giving you bad rep for saying the same. I wonder what had changed!
I SOOOOO totally agree with you :D XD
2

Every time I hear Communism I just think back to my days at school and George Orwell's Animal Farm.

From what I understand, the message he was driving home was that although Communism is great in theory, equal rights for everybody - it just never works in practice. Worst case scenario you end up with a government that is more exploitative than a dictatorship.

The problem is people... There will always be those that want better. Or those that want to exploit someone's good nature. As far as I can tell a democracy works best. Or at least it seems to have stood the test of time. However, the rich/poor divide sometimes seem huge... Even in the UK. And the Middle-Eastern democracies are laughable - Syria.

Communism just seems like a bad idea. Where's the incentive to learn how to be a brain surgeon if you get paid the same as a shoe maker? Where's the incentive to work your ass off to become CEO of your company if your pay cheque is the same as the guy on the shop floor? No... Communism just doesn't cut it.

Edited by iamthwee: n/a

Votes + Comments
agrees, also 1984 is another good Orwell title
1

The republicans had no say in passage of Obamacare. The Democrats controlled both houses of congress at that time. So I don't know how you can possibly blaim the republicans for anything.

Because the Republicans could and were Filibustering the heck out of it so if it was ever going to get through Obama had to make concessions (note originally there was going to be a public option). Although it is true that it isn't just the Republicans the Democrats have their share of corporate sponsors, who were probably pushing against it as well. As well as the mis-informed American people.

0

All forms of government will eventually break down due to man's tendency towards corruption and greed. Where capitalism has a longer "shelf-life" when coupled with a democratic republic, communism and socialism typically don't last as long before breaking down into tyranny and stifling corruption.

0

All forms of government will eventually break down due to man's tendency towards corruption and greed.

Switzerland has been a democracy since 1250, so apparently this breakdown sometimes happens very slowly.

0

Don't get the last bit:

In effect the people who he thought he should earn more than funded the education which gave him that belief.

I raised a similar topic some years ago with a mature(as in age) computer science student near the end of his studies. His reply to people being in similar wages for different jobs was that he had studied hard to get to where he was so when he finished he deserved a better wage. This point may have had some substance were we not (at the time) living in a country where secondary education was funded by the taxpayer. In effect the people who he thought he should earn more than funded the education which gave him that belief.:-O

0

What is single-pater health care?

My understanding of Obamacare is that it includes no public option so the trillions of taxpayer dollars will pay the big insurance corporations. I don't see this as socialism. It continues the trend of the rich (insurance companies, so-called 'non-profit' hospitals, etc.) getting richer and the majority of the taxpayers getting poorer.

No, I don't want Communism. But I think many single-payer health care systems in Scandinavia and UK have better results than the USA does with less total cost.

0

Single payer healthcare is where only one entity (the government) pays for certain healthcare services (aka its illegal for anyone else to pay for it) this effectively lets that entity set the price of that service and lets the private service providers decide whether or not or how much of that service to offer. It typically results is more equal treatment of patients and lower costs overall. As far as I know Canada has the only "True" single payer system but I could be mistaken I haven't looked into the European systems.

To give a concrete example: take hip replacements
under a single payer system the gov't tells all the doctors/hospitals that it will pay them $1000/hip replacement. The doctors/hospitals then decide how much of their operating room time they will use for hip replacements vs other surgeries based on this price. So if that is a reasonably profitable price and there is high demand for hip replacements (so they will be busy not wasting resources on extra orthopedic surgeons that won't have anything to do) then they will devote more time/money toward those services.

Since the patient isn't paying for it giving the hip surgery to a poor person is just as profitable as giving it to a rich person so patients are treated equally.

Since they are forbidden from charging the patient or their insurance company directly they cannot raise the price which would decrease demand (because people can't afford it) but allow them to make more profit per replacement since in reality it only costs the hospital $850 to do the procedure.

So the result is if a hospital currently has 1 orthopedic surgeon to increase their profit rather than raise the price of hip replacements it would hire more surgeons or increase the hours the surgeon works.

Note: The number and type of services under single-payer can vary, for instance in Canada any "essential" healthcare is single payer but cosmetic surgery, dental care, vision care are mostly private.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

>> The doctors/hospitals then decide how much of their operating room time they will use for hip replacements vs other surgeries based on this price.

Wonderful. So the hospital says you have 30 minutes to do the hip replacement. When the time clock expires then toss the patient out whether the operation is finished or not and to another hip replacement.

>>Since the patient isn't paying for it giving the hip surgery to a poor person is just as profitable as giving it to a rich person so patients are treated equally.
Yup -- everyone is treated equally like shit.

0

The phrase "more equal treatment of patients and lower costs overall" looks on the surface like it is a desirable state of affairs, but looks can be deceiving.

Consider: If health care were stopped entirely for everyone, then costs would be zero and all patients would be treated equally, because there wouldn't be any.

So the phrase describes a state of affairs that, taken to its logical limit, would be essentially the worst possible. Why should it be assumed to be desirable in smaller quantities?

0

>> The doctors/hospitals then decide how much of their operating room time they will use for hip replacements vs other surgeries based on this price.

Wonderful. So the hospital says you have 30 minutes to do the hip replacement. When the time clock expires then toss the patient out whether the operation is finished or not and to another hip replacement.

>>Since the patient isn't paying for it giving the hip surgery to a poor person is just as profitable as giving it to a rich person so patients are treated equally.
Yup -- everyone is treated equally like shit.

"Wonderful. So the hospital says you have 30 minutes to do the hip replacement. When the time clock expires then toss the patient out whether the operation is finished or not and to another hip replacement."

Now you're just being ridiculous, of course they don't toss you out if the surgery isn't complete that is called "malpractice" and they can be sued for millions or lose their operating license or be sent to prison. No they will book 1 or 2 hip replacements instead of 20 if there is more demand for a more valuable/profitable surgery eg. breast cancer surgeries.

"Yup -- everyone is treated equally like shit."
How well people are treated depends on how much money tax payers are willing to spend on it. Which I will fully agree isn't the amount the rich people in the USA are willing to pay so yes everyone is treated worse than the rich people in the USA (So as you might expect generally rich people aren't supporters of single-payer). But as Canada proves the quality of treatment (if not customer service) is comparable at a fraction of the cost and available to all.

Now you're unwilling to forgo four star hospital food and a private hospital room with a 50" plasma TV and 300+ channels so that poor Joe can have all his fingers reattached after a work accident, fine. But don't expect me to believe it is the ethical thing to do.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

The phrase "more equal treatment of patients and lower costs overall" looks on the surface like it is a desirable state of affairs, but looks can be deceiving.

Consider: If health care were stopped entirely for everyone, then costs would be zero and all patients would be treated equally, because there wouldn't be any.

So the phrase describes a state of affairs that, taken to its logical limit, would be essentially the worst possible. Why should it be assumed to be desirable in smaller quantities?

Well the reverse: less equal treatment at higher cost carried to its logical extreme is one person in the world spending all the money of the world to have his temperature taken with a solid gold, diamond encrusted thermometer with 100 doctors standing by to address his every whim, which is the worst possible (I would argue worse than spending 0 and having no treatment because at least the money could be used for something else). So why should it be assumed to be desirable in smaller quantities?

0

Well the reverse: less equal treatment at higher cost carried to its logical extreme is one person in the world spending all the money of the world to have his temperature taken with a solid gold, diamond encrusted thermometer...

You're wrong, because you're assuming that both extremes involve forced transfer of wealth, and there's no justification for that assumption.

So the other extreme is that people get whatever medical care they are able to pay for, and the market sets the rates. That state of affairs has its own disadvantages, of course; but as far as I can see, it is better in every way than the other extreme.

0

LOL I changed all the Google ads to lawyers hoping to sue your doctors for you just by posting the word "malpractice". Capitalism in action!

0

You're wrong, because you're assuming that both extremes involve forced transfer of wealth, and there's no justification for that assumption.

So the other extreme is that people get whatever medical care they are able to pay for, and the market sets the rates. That state of affairs has its own disadvantages, of course; but as far as I can see, it is better in every way than the other extreme.

You are making an equally invalid assumption that tax payers and citizens who elect the gov't would be unwilling/unable to pay anything for healthcare.

The extreme case of low cost and equal treatment is the gov't pays at cost for all treatments it can afford to make available which are available free to all people and any other treatment is not available at all.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

You are making an equally invalid assumption that tax payers and citizens who elect the gov't would be unwilling/unable to pay anything for healthcare.

I'm making no assumptions--I'm just pointing out the error in your assertion.

The extreme case of low cost and equal treatment is the gov't pays at cost for all treatments it can afford to make available which are available free to all people and any other treatment is not available at all.

And if the government decides not to pay for any treatments, that yields the extreme I mentioned earlier.

Either way, it proves my point: Using "low cost" and "equal treatment" as your only measures of merit leads to an absurd result--a fact that shows that those measures by themselves are not appropriate, despite superficial appearances.

0

"And if the government decides not to pay for any treatments, that yields the extreme I mentioned earlier."

Why would the gov't decide to pay for 0 treatments????

If it did, you could vote them out of office, riot in the streets, rebel and over throw the gov't, or in Canada's case petition to the Governor General to have them dissolve the government immediately.

Single-payer healthcare does not imply omnipotent dictatorship. So yes you are making assumptions.

You are making the assumption the vast majority of people don't want healthcare or are somehow completely powerless to control their own gov't.

"I'm just pointing out the error in your assertion."

No you're not, I didn't assert in my original post that being lower cost/more equal is necessarily better just a difference between the systems. Although I do happen to believe paying closer to cost for anything is better than paying far above cost so stock holders can pocket the profits, and that all humans should have a right to good health. You are free to disagree with those opinions if you wish.

"Using "low cost" and "equal treatment" as your only measures of merit"

Please note my reference to the fact that CANADA PROVES THE QUALITY OF TREATMENT IS ABOUT THE SAME. So the major differences are equality of treatment and cost. My original post was trying to explain how single-payer differs from not single-payer thus I didn't point out that the quality of treatment is about the same. I was not even meaning for them to be measures of merit meerly the "Big Picture" differences.

Edited by Agilemind: n/a

0

I think you should start responding to what I actually wrote, rather than to what you imagine I'm thinking--because your imagination is incorrect.

0

I think I've figure out the confusion. I was only pointing out the differences between the single-payer and non single-payer system and since the quality is about the same I didn't address it. But I will now. Of course the pressure from the patients for good quality healthcare exists equally in both systems but through different routes.

Non-single payer individual choice between providers (restricted by monopolies) maintains the quality and cost of the healthcare.

Single-payer on the other hand quality and cost is maintained by individual choice between candidates (restricted by parties) running in elections.

The there are some subtle differences as a result. Politicians/gov't hire experts and demand evidence so they can throw facts and figures at the electorate that the quality of healthcare has been improved under their tenure. It also means that innovation takes longer to be adopted since it is tax money that pays for treatment and the electorate is more protective of it (I'm not sure why) a new treatment (or more expensive one) must have substantial evidence that it is better than the current/cheaper one. But on the other hand money is not wasted on unnecessary/ineffective treatment either (such as many of the prostate surgeries in the US). Although with all the "health" shows the public is thinking it knows better than the experts (see homeopathy or the venous treatment for MS) so this may change.

Where as companies hire advertising companies to help them convince patients to pay more and pay to improve appearances to convince patients directly that the care is better. Innovation is faster because only the patients need to be convinced which is often easier than experts since the patients usually do not understand scientific evidence. But treatment can be more wasteful (more expensive newer drugs, unnecessary surgery). When insurance companies are considered as well it because more complicated because they want to convince customers they will pay for best treatment while in reality paying for cheapest treatment or not paying at all, which leads to all kinds of dirty tricks.

Overall the quality is about the same but non single-payer "feels" better to the patients.

0

Switzerland has been a democracy since 1250, so apparently this breakdown sometimes happens very slowly.

Switzerland is a bit more complex... and their current constitution has "only" been around since 1848.

0

What is single-pater health care?

A hoax. Everyone pays, whether he's using it or not. The cost just doesn't show directly as it's hidden in a plethora of taxes, mandatory (and overpriced) insurance policies, etc. etc. etc.

Once you take away peoples' incentive to be sparse with the medical care they seek, many will start going to the doctor for every stubbed toe or sniffle, greatly increasing the cost of the system.
It also inevitably leads to massive bureaucracies to manage the money (which now has to come from me to pay for your visit to the ER for a bruised lip, which you'd never visit a doctor for if you had to pay for it yourself), corruption, waste, etc. and in the end (very shortly) there will be government edicts about who will get treated for what and when.

So we've here a government edict that there are at most something like 1000 heart procedures a year, nationwide. Any more aren't funded, and can't be had even if you elect to pay for it yourself (which will cost you far more than it now costs in the US, as you'd have to pay the inflated price caused by government run healthcare programs).
In the UK there's plans to ban overweight people, smokers, and others deemed to follow "unhealthy lifestyles" from all healthcare, even emergency care, in order to reduce cost. Effectively you're handing out a death penalty to entire sections of the population, including people who've a condition they can do nothing about.
Take a person I know who's seriously obese because of a medical condition (thyroid cancer). Under the UK plans he'd not get any medical care at all for his cancer and be left to die because under those guidelines he's obese and therefore will not be treated.
The UK has also set an upper limit of something like 40.000 pounds on the total cost of any treatment regime. If your treatment is going to cost more than that it won't be approved, even if it means you'll die. If treatment seems to cost less but ends up paying more, it's stopped when that number is reached even if it means you'll die.
If you seek treatment at your own cost outside of the government approved channels, you're for life banned from using the official healthcare system but will be required to keep paying for it.
In the meantime the government has for itself (MPs, government ministers, senior government workers) created a parallel system in which no restrictions to the care they can claim exist, yet it's still paid for by those same tax funds that pay for everything else (and everything else is cut more and more because it's too expensive).

Welcome to socialist healthcare, where the only people getting any care at all are those with the right connections and capable of paying high enough bribes.
That's what Obamacare is going to bring to the US if it goes life.

0

It [single-payer] also inevitably leads to massive bureaucracies to manage the money...

Not nearly as massive as the combined resources of the multiple insurance companies managing thousands of insurance plans with different rules for what is and is not a reimbursable expense, as is the case for the multi-payer system in the US.

Here in Canada health-care workers know pretty well what sort of care will be covered but in the USA they cannot. If you want to know if you can afford some medical procedure that your doctor recommends, ask the appropriate bureaucrat at your insurance company.

0

there will be government edicts about who will get treated for what and when.

As opposed to insurance company rules about who will get treated for what and when......

And discrimination against people with a lifestyle that causes them to have more problems vs discrimination against people with a different job/socio-economic status (which result in different levels of insurance) or different race see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100418215339.htm

Please provide a link to back up your claims about the UK system, I'm very interested as I am considering moving there.

0

just read about the NHS and NICE, UK papers, blogs, and websites are full of stories about the constant stream of indignities, errors, waste, and reduction of services in the UK healthcare disaster.

In the US you have a choice. If you can't afford health insurance there's Medicare and Medicaid which are government run programs with much of the same problems as all of them.
If you don't want to have health insurance, that's your choice, and a deliberate one. People with enough money banked away may decide on that because they can afford to pay out of hand all expenses.
Otherwise, the level of care you get depends on what you're willing to pay for it, which is as it should be in a free market system. If your policy states the insurer gets to block treatment for X based on whatever, that's your choice and you can always elect to pay for it some other way.

Under Obamacare (and other government run systems) you no longer have any choice. When the Death Panel has spoken, that decision is final with no appeal.

And why should I, as a single man, be forced to pay for things like treatment of post-natal depression through my government-forced health insurance, yet can't get coverage for glasses which I do need (or rather the maximum coverage is so low it doesn't even come close to paying for what I need medically)?
Why should I have to pay for treatment of childhood diseases for children I don't have?
Insurance is supposed to be about alleviating risks, not "income equalisation", yet that's what it is under government run systems (where "insurance" premiums are effectively income tax and income dependent rather than risk dependent, despite all the data that shows people with higher incomes require on average less medical care than people with lower incomes.

0

"And why should I, as a single man, be forced to pay for things like treatment of post-natal depression through my government-forced health insurance, yet can't get coverage for glasses which I do need (or rather the maximum coverage is so low it doesn't even come close to paying for what I need medically)?
Why should I have to pay for treatment of childhood diseases for children I don't have?
Insurance is supposed to be about alleviating risks, not "income equalisation", yet that's what it is under government run systems (where "insurance" premiums are effectively income tax and income dependent rather than risk dependent, despite all the data that shows people with higher incomes require on average less medical care than people with lower incomes."

Paying for things you don't use are valid concerns and come to the ideological difference between public vs private health care, the question is:

Is health a common good? or is health care an ethical responsibility?

In more clear terms does poor Sally down the street having good health care benefit you or society in general enough to be worth paying for a share of it? Or is it your moral duty to help her when she is sick?

To the second question my personal opinion is yes but I can accept there will be differences in opinion there. Although I think a lot of it has to do with distance, if Sally was laying on the side walk in front of your house going into labour I doubt there would be anyone who wouldn't go out and help her. But, I don't believe in absolute morals so I'm not going to debate it.

The first one can be addressed with evidence although the "value" is again personal opinion. Countries where everyone receives good health care are generally more happy than others http://thejunction.net/justfacts/2008/03/07/happiness-study-reveals-health-formula-bad-choices/ . Some particular services we can know empirically that universal healthcare benefits everyone such as infectious diseases, where universal healthcare improves "herd immunity" which reduces everyone's chance of contracting the disease. Also, programs in sexual health for women (including abortion) are considered a major goal for development in poor countries. So having good healthcare for everyone does benefit you indirectly but whether you consider it worth the cost (as most developed countries do) is up to you.

Aside: Too bad you don't have any good links to back up your claims, I will have to look it up myself because I am genuinely interested. I would still insist there are many people who would like better/more treatment but cannot receive it not because of choice but because of financial reality.

0

Re: Death Panels

"Death Panels" were a curious bit of republican rhetoric because despite watching countless documentaries/investigative reports and talking to doctors first hand I've never heard of anything that could be remotely described as a "death panel" in single payer health care. However, I heard countless complaints of insurance companies (in the USA) refusing to cover patients with certain risk factors or pre-existing conditions -> in essence a "Death Panel". Sure these people can keep looking at more and more companies but what happens to their quality of care? if your forced out of the monopoly insurance companies you have few options when it comes to finding a hospital that will accept your insurance and what you can get covered is severely restricted.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.