Health Insurance versus Health Care

... What specifically is silly about it? Are my statements silly because they do not correspond to what you believe?

Again, who said anything about the people receiving subsidized health care?

When did I express any anger with them?

I believe that angst is otherwise known as disagreement.

Secondly, merely stating that health care for profit is a bad idea is not an argument. It is a statement. If that is the sort of discoure you desire, I would simply respond with, no it isn't. That's absurd. You've made your claim, now provide arguments to justify it.

So what is your point? You cannot discount a principled argument against socialized health care on the ground that other people who oppose socialized health care do so for non-principled reasons.

And I'm sure you do, you'd just rather make ad hominem attacks at the moment.

I disagree. In breif my opinion is that, 1) the purpose of the state is to prevent the violation of individual rights, not to provide for the general welfare, 2) that besides being inappropriate by that principle, universal health care is dangerous, in that it grants government tremendous potential authority over the minutia of personal life (eating habits e.g.), and 3) regardless of any other, subective argument, universal health care is not feasable in the U.S. because of the cost.

I never once called anyone lazy.

What you are doing is called the straw man argument. It is intellectually dishonest.

I'd like to thank you Aedes, for your attempt to enlighten on the complexity of this matter. Unfortunately, it appears that once someone gets it stuck in their head that folks just want handouts, they all want to be lazy...I find the same accusations and vitriol, from the same people, when talking about anything where someone can snag the "no free lunch!"-banner

I did, I brought it up because its something I think part of the issue - important to consider.

Who said you were angry? I see anger in this issue - are you under the impression that all things, including all of what I say about an issue, revolves around you personally?

No, angst is an emotion. Disagreement is a perceived or real opposing relationship between two subjects or objects. I sensed angst in your initial response; but whether or not that is what you're feeling, I can't say.

Ah yes, and so we come full circle. For every claim, point of support, statistic, testimonial or study presented in the case against nationalized health care, there will be then such the same presented in the opposition. Let's resort to rationality and use logic; and we'll come down to another useless end for want of a term, or a conceptualization of validity, or some such - much like where we're heading now. It's worth the effort to discuss, share and disagree; but where that's the case let's just leave it at that.

And this would be misapplied pseudo-intellectual term-dropping and insulting. While I think responding to much of what you've said might be good for the discussion overall, this last statement of yours smacks of arrogant presumption; the kind that says "You're intellectually dishonest". As such, I'll halt my contributions to this thread here.

I believe that Khethil would not say anything out of turn unless it was write

Shouldn't a moderator be objective? I guess not. Anyway, if you want to know how Khetil provoked and then inflamed the issue, I suggest you look at the posts in the thread. I already made my case, and you reprimanded me for doing so, so I'm not going to do it again.

Thanks

Or, we could burden the people with a multi-trillion dollar new entitlement program when we can't remotely afford the one's we have, while forcing everytone to join a federally operated system of dubious quality and motives.

Tough decision...:sarcastic:

Yes! Let's add a bunch of layers of bureaucracy to 'fix' a system that is not working because of government intervention.

I think it could be summed up in a very simple way: Problems arise whenever the one receiving the service is distanced from the one paying for the service.

Phony statistics by socialists who wish to take power..

Yes! Let's add a bunch of layers of bureaucracy to 'fix' a system that is not working because of government intervention.

Now to be fair, gentlemen, there are any number of countires which have national helath care systems.

In virtually all of these countries health care is delivered for 7-10% of the GNP as opposed to the US 16-18% of the GNP.

By virtually any measure of overall health of the population: longevity, infant mortality, etc, health care in those countires with NHS systems is equal to or better than the U.S.

It is simply not true that the government is incapable of delivering health care of reasonable quality for reasonable costs. In fact about half the health care system in the US through medicare is devlivered through a government program and overhead for medicare is about 2-3% of the costs as opposed to 20-30% for private health insurance plans.

Facts and experience do not support the conclusion that NHS systems are a disaster for health care systems and quality of care.

We can cover everyone. We can not cover everything. Almost all countries with NHS systems also have a private system of insurance to cover care not covered under the public system.

Who are the socialist? Do you think socialists want to kill old people?

, let ` s kill off the bureaucracy. In fact, let` s not have any government at all. Everyone is for him, or her self.

Most are just naive ideologues who have never been taught economics. They kill people nonetheless.



.

That I don't want the government to add layers of bureaucracy to the health care system must mean that I want there to be no government at all; no police stations

I suppose I could just agree to disagree and let you have the last word; but the issue is just too important and too much of a human rights and human dignity issue. Ability to pay is not a good way to distribute fundamental basic life saving or preventative health care.

Medical spending in the US is about 2.4 trillion dollars. Spending per individual is about 7,500$, or about 16-17% of the GNP. This is unquestionably higher than in other countries with NHS. The Medicare program in 2008 was about 400 Billion dollars. So Medicare does not constitute as large a percentage as some claim or think. Even Medicare is still delivered by private doctors and private hospitals so the system is not government run or government controlled in that sense. Patients still have a choice about providers and hospitals often more than they have under private insurance plans.

There is of course no direct subsidy from the US to other nations health care systems. So what you are implying is an indirect subsidy through the development of new drugs, medications, technologies, procedures and devices. There is some truth in this claim. The US is in fact the leader in the development of such medical advances and this is partly because of the for profit nature of medical care in the US. I am concerned that total socialization of the medical care system, and the elimination of the profit motive would reduce the overall level of innovation and investment in medical advance. I think this should be taken into account in designing a national health care system that provides access to basic and life saving medical care for everyone.

Where do you get this information? US infant mortality is higher largely because of teen pregnancies, lack of prenatal care, maternal drug, smoke and alcohol abuse, premature birth and other factors many of which relate to sex education, prenatal care and access to contraceptive technology and information. Your premature, malformed or otherwise impaired infant is more likely to survive in the US because of the high tech, high intensity care available here but everyone would be better off if the factors that lead to such peri-natal events could be minimized in the first place.

It rates access to care and preventative care as among the factors to be considered. No doubt those who can get care in the US can get among the world's most sophisticated, most expensive and highest quality care in the world. That is why the wealthy and powerful often come to the US for their care. In general when one ranks health care systems the best available care does not count more than access to care or preventive care. I happen to agree the overall health of nation is not measured by the level of care available to the privileged few.

People die under any health care system. "For every man that walks upon the earth, Death cometh soon or late". National Health Care systems emphasize early treatment, preventive care and cover procedures and medications take have proven benefit. They cover everybody but not everything. There is almost invariably also a private health care system for those with private insurance or ability to pay.

In a free market system access to care is rationed on the basis of ability to pay. All systems ration available resources. Many countries have decided "ability to pay" is not an effective or rational way to distribute basic fundamental and preventative health care. I happen to agree with them.