Health Care and the Candidates

[Elvi]

My problem with the European Health Care Model is frankly its a matter of size of the nations involved. The United States is huge with a very eclectic population and a $10+ trillion national debt in other words the Federal Government in broke and in debt. We can't afford to even think about such large scale reforms at the Federal government level even if they were allowed under the Constitution to do so. Counties and States might be able to act on this they are traditionally in our country better at adapting and developing new programs efficiently. And some states are acting to set-up some Health Care reforms.

Lets be blunt most of your nations such as England are just financially far better off, smaller in population and have frankly more efficient governments. In our country the smaller the government and more local the more efficient it usually gets a township or city is better than a county a county better than a state and a state far better than the Federal Government.

As for what the Federal Government can do just cutting down regulations not absolutely necessary for public health would be a start such as the FDA just seeing if a drug is safe not whether it works or is better than an existing drug. The former I would argue may be justified the latter is a private matter between doctors and their patients to determine if a drug should be used or not. I could point out others such as making it hard for a foreign properly trained doctor from practicing primary care in the United States I know three Cuban doctors that can't practice in the US and are perfectly well trained for general care. They may have a poor country but do have good medical schools. That is an outrage when we are desperate for primary care physicians in this country. Little things like this could ease pressures and not cost a dime.

I know that this is going to probably stun both yourself and many others, but I agree with you or almost every point Ruby.
(Though it's not just 'England', it's the Untied Kingdom, or Great Britain)

I really, really want to dislike the concept of universal health care.  But then, it makes sense for more or less exactly the same broad reasons that public education makes sense, and I certainly don't think public education is a bad idea.

On the other hand, the state of public education is a pretty strong indicator that the United States government cannot be trusted with its citizens' basic necessities.  I can't support universal health care until our government shows some sign of competence.

Nothing is ever perfect, it certainly isn't in this country, but the one good thing is that the basics are there and when that is the case, then things can be improved.

A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

(Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X)[/color]

Note the lines that is bold.   How come most capitalists conveniently over look this or ignore such.

A precurser to the British Welfare state.
"Saturday Funds"
Set up by and in communities to try and keep their communities healthy and cared for.

Quote from: Celestial Goblin  on Today at 02:40:14am

Worse, you're all slaves.

Yup.....

[kongming]

We, in Great Britain believe that it is everyones right to have these things, this is what Celestial was advocating, so....by your logic, I must come to the conclusion that Great Britain is, infact, Communist state.

I think my ex put it best, being sarcastic of course:
"Sneaky communists, disguising themselves as humanitarians and spreading their propaganda as 'compassion'"

In Mozilla Firefox, you keep tabs in your browser. But in Sovjet Russia, browser keeps tabs on YOU!

[RubySlippers]

Checks to see if the End of the World is Nigh' at Elvi's comment...

:o

;)

Well I'll defend the U.K. in they are not a communist state but a representative parlimentary multi-party system that so happens to have a very nice health care system. I was in the country when my mother broke her leg and she did get excellent and mostly free care, the drugs were all she had to pay for.

In our nation the states are far better off doing it themselves and they are to some degree. If a state comes up with a solid program others will and should copy it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Maybe this is a little late, but I just had a curiousity.  Why isn't Healthcare as important as the police force or the fire department?  I understand the police force keeps the laws of a country enforced and the fire department keeps an area from being destroyed.  Yet Healthcare keeps a populace healthy and working.  People that work produce money that the government then uses to fund its interests.  Healthy people work and so produce revenue and so are vital to the function of society.

I suppose someone can say, people who work have access to healthcare.  Yet low wage jobs do not provide for healthcare in many instances  Things like grocery store clerks, sandwhich artists, certified nursing assistants and other lower wage jobs do not have that option.  Since the population of people without healthcare does not align itself closely with our unemployment rate, I'd use that for evidence.  There is also the case of employed people with healthcare insurance not being able to afford their healthcare.  Then there are companies that have trouble supplying their workers with healthcare insurance while still staying competitive.  Course they could drop those benefits and hire immigrants who will work without them or maybe outsource their labor.  Dunno if that will be healthy for that nation's economy.

Regular checkups with a doctor can also help prevent further illness and poor health conditions.  This helps prevent the person from being sick for longer and thus not being productive.  Also helps the person live a longer and more productive life so that they pay more money into the system.  Then regular visits for pregnant mothers and children also prevent further complications that may (anyone who is handicap please don't take offense) result in a less productive citizen. 

Taking it logically, citizens are the commodity of a society.  If they are commodities then it is in a nation (or state's) best interest to preserve and take care of their commodity.  People pay into the system and get out of it, no matter their income.  The wealthy in this country do not stand atop a mountain they have climbed, but rather atop a mound of people that support them.  While their individual effort gained them their spot, it is the work of people beneath them and around them that maintain this infrastructure.  An infrastructure that has allowed them their vaulted position.

So, to me, healthcare is a vital part of a society.   

[RubySlippers]

I tend to agree it is as important for those very reasons. But I will support the same level of government involvement for health care programs. In the United States for the most part the major levels of police and fire department services are locally run in my county each city and township generally provides its own fire department and police department. There is a county level Sheriffs office and state highway patrol offices but they are more secondary to the Saint Petersburg Police or the Largo Police or the Clearwater Police each with its own offices. The Fire Services are also for the main restricted to the city and towns a few lease out to unincorporated areas.

So I would state if they are to be treated the same then the counties and cities/townships should provide the health care program maybe with the state having some oversight into the professional licensing and areas it is better suited to handle.

Let me use an example of the problem the Europeans might understand. Lets say the EU was twice as large with some poorer nations and others larger like states are here and you all wanted ONE EU health care plan covering all these nations. How easy would that be to have the U.K. and lets say Poland and France and Greece all agree to give up their ways of offering it for one plan. Its the same problem here in the United States. We have fifty nations (states) all who loath Federal mandates on them within them maybe fifty counties all loath to take state mandates and within them maybe ten cities and townships who are also fairly rugged individualistic minded all having to agree. Its easy for the U.K. and France alone to have a plan they have smaller populations, the plans are widely supported and even with flaws here and there meet their needs. In a EU wide plan they would have to give up some of their rights and sovereignty to a huge impersonal Federal sort of health service I suspect that would make it likely impossible.

In the US the only recourse I can see is mostly city to county maybe with the state a bit involved sort of health care plan and that might not be that easy, California is meeting fierce opposition from special interests as they work on covering everyone. A Federal mandate like Hillary intends will never fly and if they try it will leave still many uninsured or underinsured as now and could be worst. You give a person a bare-bones plan they can't afford to use to to co-pays and deductibles it will leave them with no recourse in some states now offered such as the Charity Care Law in Florida.

[Celestial Goblin]

Provided minimum standarts and norms are set, there's nothing wrong in letting individual states be in charge of their own healthcare plans.
Of course without minimum standarts, a state could just decide not to have any healthcare and then send all of it's sick into a neighbouring state for treatment, so there needs to be a check to prevent that.
Another excpetion would probably be very rare and difficult to treat illnesses and conditions. Just like local police can call upon FBI and local fire department can call upon emergency services in case of a natural disaster, local doctors should not be expected to handle brain surgery or separating conjoined twins.
Of course that can also be handled by payments between the states or something.

[RubySlippers]

Whose norms?

Should a state be barred from sending a high cost patiant overseas for care at a private for-profit hospital if it would perhaps save a very large amount?

Should a state have to cover illegal immigrants?

Oregon tried to cover everyone on Medicaid that was uninsured several years ago they were sued for denying payments for some areas of care that you and I might call not practical such as fertility drugs, and for deciding some treatments weren't cost effective for the results.

Any Federal controls would be very unpopular if No Child Left Behind didn't make that clear, they can handle some things like making it easier for foreign trained doctors to get licensed in the United States and deal with regulations to some degree. But states and counties would have to be the main parties involved. I can tell you right now in Florida we are in a rather nasty but peaceful tax revolt the funding for a State program is not going to happen here, if the Federal Government mandates it it would be asking for blood from a rock.

[Celestial Goblin]

Whose norms?

I assume that's for the politicans to work out... I don't know how bad the situation is in America and what you can afford. Probably anything life saving would get priority, for example.

Should a state be barred from sending a high cost patiant overseas for care at a private for-profit hospital if it would perhaps save a very large amount?

Barred from something that saves money? No way...

Should a state have to cover illegal immigrants?

Quite a separate topic, though I imagine in life-threatening situations, I'm afraid there's no other choice... (unless we're back to 'how dare you expect human emotions from me' situation.)
Of course one can try to regain at least some of the money by making the illegals pay. Making those who employed the illegals pay for their healthcare could be a solution, perhaps?

Oregon tried to cover everyone on Medicaid that was uninsured several years ago they were sued for denying payments for some areas of care that you and I might call not practical such as fertility drugs, and for deciding some treatments weren't cost effective for the results.

That's why, again, you need politicians honestly interested in the system working in charge of drafting the law, so they won't leave holes in the system.

[RubySlippers]

Sorry as an American and well growing up in our system of government I have to do this to your comments...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

ahem....

Ok now I got that out of my system. The Federal Government has never created a program that hasn't been twisted and abused in ways never intended save the Postal Service, even the Federal Reserve has rather modest benefits. They have a Medicare Drug Program that is a joke, are paying more for Medicare than originally projected and the FDA now is a market force not just a branch to verify a drug is safe but rather making market decisions. You think any State will trust them. Not to mention the special interests will rule any discussion on this issue.

[Celestial Goblin]

If your politicians break everything they touch, you obviously need to elect better ones. The responsibility lies on the voters.

Or are you saying that there's some mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, no matter who gets elected? I don't really think that's true.

Truth be told, many of the concerns you raise are valid and there's no 'magic bullet' solution to them. But saying 'politicians, sue-happy people and special interest groups will spoil things for us so it's no use to try' is a cop-out.

So at a glance, doesn't any of the currently running and electable candidates have a good plan? If you'd be choosing a candidate solely based on their approach to healthcare, who would you choose?

[Jefepato]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

Yes their is, it is called lobbyists.  That prevents are elected officials from being competent administrators.   

Sorry as an American and well growing up in our system of government I have to do this to your comments...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

ahem....

Ok now I got that out of my system. The Federal Government has never created a program that hasn't been twisted and abused in ways never intended save the Postal Service, even the Federal Reserve has rather modest benefits. They have a Medicare Drug Program that is a joke, are paying more for Medicare than originally projected and the FDA now is a market force not just a branch to verify a drug is safe but rather making market decisions. You think any State will trust them. Not to mention the special interests will rule any discussion on this issue.

You never cease to amaze me.   If we had it your way.   North America would be balkanized.  Their be no union.  You be living in la la land if you thought the Union could survive with out a Federal government.     An Robert Heinlein's  vision in his science fiction novels, especially 'Friday' would come to pass.   

I mean who is going to maintain the interstates.  Surely the different state department of transportations.  But oh where is that money going to come from.  Hmmm I guess the states are going to have raise taxes.  Because no more Federal money for such,  no federal government.   Oh I know, we can have another lotto and instead of just river boat casinos.  We can  have puddle casinos.   

You want health care, to be in the states hands.  Hmmm let see, when the Floridian has to pay a state income tax.  Because their burden with the overwhelming  abundance of old people on fixed income.   I sure bet they will be happy that the states are handling it.   

[Humble Scribe]

I'm also intrigued by Ruby's idea that the EU is better-off financially than the US. Look at some GDP per capita figures. At Purchasing Power Parity (ie taking into account not just exchange rates but also the fact that things cost different amounts in different countries) the figures are:
US: $46,000
EU: $32,900.
In other words, you earn, on average, and as a nation, 30% more than us. Don't tell me that you're too poor to afford universal healthcare. Yes, Ruby, there are disparities in wealth across the US. Believe it or not, there are quite large disparities in wealth even across a small country like the UK. The GDP per capita for London is about twice that of Wales.
There are no insuperable barriers to do with electoral systems, lobbyists, etc, it's just a question of how you decide to set national priorities. And the truth is that there are simply enough people who think like Methos who don't want it to happen.

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

That's true of every country, Jefe. Or at least, that perception is shared in every country I've ever visited. I suspect that the truth is that *most* of our (I mean yours and mine both, not just 'ours' as in UK) politicians are actually a lot more moral than we give them credit for. And as for competence... Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were regarded as competently-run organisations until a very short while ago. Enron was seen as a model of the New Paradigm, until it turned out to be a fraud on an unimaginable scale. We focus on government's screw-ups, but that's because the media spotlight is (quite rightly) on them. Every organisation screws up from time to time. Just that some get away with it more because they aren't held to account in a way our politicians ... usually... are.

[National Acrobat]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

The reality is, those people know they can't change the system, so they don't run for the office. In the odd event that one actually does, and gets elected, they learn very quickly as a noobie that if they want to make any headway, they have to play the games in Washington to get anything done.

[Celestial Goblin]

There's no mysterious condition that prevents Americans from being competent administrators, but it seems to me that people who are both principled and competent never rise to the top of our political system.

Yes their is, it is called lobbyists.  That prevents are elected officials from being competent administrators.   

The reality is, those people know they can't change the system, so they don't run for the office. In the odd event that one actually does, and gets elected, they learn very quickly as a noobie that if they want to make any headway, they have to play the games in Washington to get anything done.

This is somewheat tangentially related to the topic, but I have to say those are true.
Lobbyists and influential political 'clans' are bad news for democracy in every part of the world. *sigh*

[RubySlippers]

I'm also intrigued by Ruby's idea that the EU is better-off financially than the US. Look at some GDP per capita figures. At Purchasing Power Parity (ie taking into account not just exchange rates but also the fact that things cost different amounts in different countries) the figures are:
US: $46,000
EU: $32,900.
In other words, you earn, on average, and as a nation, 30% more than us. Don't tell me that you're too poor to afford universal healthcare. Yes, Ruby, there are disparities in wealth across the US. Believe it or not, there are quite large disparities in wealth even across a small country like the UK. The GDP per capita for London is about twice that of Wales.
There are no insuperable barriers to do with electoral systems, lobbyists, etc, it's just a question of how you decide to set national priorities. And the truth is that there are simply enough people who think like Methos who don't want it to happen.

That's true of every country, Jefe. Or at least, that perception is shared in every country I've ever visited. I suspect that the truth is that *most* of our (I mean yours and mine both, not just 'ours' as in UK) politicians are actually a lot more moral than we give them credit for. And as for competence... Bear Stearns and Northern Rock were regarded as competently-run organisations until a very short while ago. Enron was seen as a model of the New Paradigm, until it turned out to be a fraud on an unimaginable scale. We focus on government's screw-ups, but that's because the media spotlight is (quite rightly) on them. Every organisation screws up from time to time. Just that some get away with it more because they aren't held to account in a way our politicians ... usually... are.

Proof of we are a poorer nation than you think...

www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Lets see we have a huge national debt, are spending more than we are taking in and each American owes the government de fact over $30,000 each that is every adult man and woman and every child in rough numbers.

Lets see if I was spending more than I was taking in with a huge debt I would not be rich would I?

In fact I would be poor maybe not on paper but in fact the United States is a poorer nation and that doesn't take into account expected rises in obligated social programs for retirees and the Iraq war. And people wonder why I support the Libertarian Party they are at least against this outrageous management of Federal affairs.

Maybe if we get the government chopped down to size and lower everyones taxes there may be money for many reforms and market changes to Health Care. As it is unless half the incumbants get booted out one year the politicians will be sitting pretty as things are going. Maybe this will scare you overseas and it scares me but the Federal Government collapsing may be the best thing that could happen. I'll be honest I feel no more moral obligations to support the Federal Government as a citizen, I may have on paper a legal one but its no longer in my mind a legal Constitutional government.

[kongming]

I imagine that if the government set less money on fire by launching an ineffective war on drugs, and by randomly invading less nations, they'd have a lot more money to play with (or would at least be in a much smaller debt). Bush has flushed trillions of dollars down the toilet on these failures, and a fraction of that would have been able to cover a health care system.

[Hunter]

I imagine that if the government set less money on fire by launching an ineffective war on drugs, and by randomly invading less nations, they'd have a lot more money to play with (or would at least be in a much smaller debt). Bush has flushed trillions of dollars down the toilet on these failures, and a fraction of that would have been able to cover a health care system.

Yeah...next time you think that go back and look at the 9/11 footage.

That's what results from an administration more interested in socialism than national defense.


And what about China?  China has the world's largest slave labor force (in the billions last I heard).  Yet after close to 30 years of embargos, NOTHING CHANGED.  In fact by reopening trade relations with China, the Clinton Administration showed defacto approval for the practice.

Don't all those people "deserve" and "have" the same rights as everyone else?

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Yeah...next time you think that go back and look at the 9/11 footage.

That's what results from an administration more interested in socialism than national defense.


And what about China?  China has the world's largest slave labor force (in the billions last I heard).  Yet after close to 30 years of embargos, NOTHING CHANGED.  In fact by reopening trade relations with China, the Clinton Administration showed defacto approval for the practice.

Don't all those people "deserve" and "have" the same rights as everyone else?

Boy are you deluded.  Hunter are you really Ann Coulter.   Takes a quick peek to see.  Especially with your so called selected revisionist history. 

[Hunter]

Boy are you deluded.  Hunter are you really Ann Coulter.   Takes a quick peek to see.  Especially with your so called selected revisionist history. 

Okay then.  China doesn't use slave labor.  I'm deluded.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Okay then.  China doesn't use slave labor.  I'm deluded.

You automatically throw all the woes onto the democratic President.   Even when saying the root of the problem goes back thirty years.  Back to when President Nixon first  reopen relations with China, I guess your referencing. 

An the first thing out in response is go check 9/11 tapes.  Anything that has to do with military cutting and your perception on that socialism has to be to the extreme.  Their is such a thing as not black and white.  That we live in a world of shades.   That we can find the common ground to help all the people and not the ones privilege.  While at the same time, find the means to have a strong defense.   

And back to your so called opening trade with China. It could never had happen.  If we didn't have a republican congress in at the time whole heartily chomping at the bit with greed.  Oh thats right we don't consider that.   Of course the standard history review of the past five years.  By like minded people.  Will be the reason why President Bush could not get anything done was because he was hampered by a democratic congress.   Yet go back 10 years and the congress is nicely forgotten in regards to anything that has happened.   

[Humble Scribe]

9/11 was caused by socialism? Who knew...

[Elvi]

An interesting theory both on 'socilaism' and the chinese slaves.
(Almost as good as previous claims that anyone who took the welfare of their people seriously were communists)

If it weren't for the fact that it would be taking this topic way off the tracks, I would ask Hunter to back up his claims with details?

Maybe we could ask him to start a new thread and back them up there....

[Celestial Goblin]

China does use slave labor in the form of prisoner labor. They also harvest executed prisoners for organs which they later sell and often death sentences coincide with a need for more organs for sale.

OTOH, if someone should be casting the first stone on those who mistreat prisoners, it probably shouldn't be USA, but that's a different topic. Someone already mentioned the 'war on drugs' which is just a tip of the unconstitutional and anti-freedom iceberg from what I read.

But what is really important is that two wrongs do not make a right. Having Chinese abuse people does not give other countries a moral right to do the same. If one realizes they're powerless to stop the abuse in China, it's still worth to fight the good fight at home.
And as sad as I am to admit it, there's no 'magic bullet' solution to China. Blocking them off all interaction and embargo-ing them to death will not fix anything. It's no more moral than brown-nosing to the communist party dignitaries.
Trading with them *and* exerting pressure is a workable option, but it takes time.

As for 9/11 being caused by not enough military(or did Hunter mean security) spending?
I really doubt so, because 9/11 attacks were not ones that could be stopped by military force or counter-intelligence. No one could predict such an atrocity and it's suicidal character only shows how helpless the Talibs felt against USA security.

(now, the fact that someone might have guessed that civilian airplanes can be used for suicide attacks is a differet matter. but such 'guesses' can't be bought with money. I mean, the computer game SimCity had this, but no one assumed it will happen for real...)

[Elvi]

China does use slave labor in the form of prisoner labor. They also harvest executed prisoners for organs which they later sell and often death sentences coincide with a need for more organs for sale.

In which case Celestial, we in the UK use slave labour, we make prisoners work too.
As for the organ harvesting, well yes, there does seem to be a few too many 'coincidences', but I have not seen anything that actually proves that they do this 'to order'.

However, yet again, we are wandering way....WAY off topic