Health Insurance versus Health Care

The US had full unemployment before the current depression. I guess that means that our healthcare is great! The point is that you can't claim a correlation between public health care and the unemployment.

Personal dignity applies in limited amounts to different people. Everyone is an individual and broad brushes are not applicable. However, there is a certain segment of the population that thrives on responsibility and is self-sustaining. Of course they rely on others for their resources (ie. the grocery store, their boss, etc...).

They are in their position because of their responsible actions. In other words, they are responsible for their well being and are not dependent on their parents or the government. Their responsible actions have placed them in the position that they are in. These are very dignified people and people that should be looked up to.

Contrarily, there are other people who are not so independent and their actions do not lead to much of anything. They are OK with that since that is all that they have known. To them dignity is something different.

Dignity to one culture may not be the same as dignity to another. While you may see no loss of dignity you cannot say that another culture will not loose their dignity.

Another example of this human adaptation:
Person A can make 100,000 a year while Person B makes 50,000 a year. The funny thing is that Person A can only live on their income and not on Person B's income. However Person B can live on either their income or Person A's income with no detrimental effects.

And such are many human attributes (ie. dignity, freedom, cruelty, etc...). As another example, lets assume that Person F has known a greater deal freedom their whole life. Also assume that Person S has known less freedom than Person F. Person F objects when their freedoms are taken from away (especially when by illigitimate means and by an irresponsible entity). Now Person F has the same amount of freedoms as Person S. However, Person S is perfectly contempt and dignified while Person F feels demoralized and undignified.

Since I am somewhat replying to Dave Allen's post, though this an important post for all to consider, I want to respond to one of his posts:



I never said 'vanity alone'...there is a need at times for vanity as that makes some a more productive member of society. And to dispute this while also upholding it is contradictory by any definition.




I was using that as filler and to make a point...and I did say that I wasn't totally serious. I am not sure if there was a communication problem, but most people would take this as a joke. If this was not a communication problem then either 1) reading between the lines is not your strong point or 2) it just got screwed up in the translation.

The US had full unemployment before the current depression. I guess that means that our healthcare is great! The point is that you can't claim a correlation between public health care and the unemployment.

Personal dignity applies in limited amounts to different people. Everyone is an individual and broad brushes are not applicable.

They are in their position because of their responsible actions.

Dignity to one culture may not be the same as dignity to another. While you may see no loss of dignity you cannot say that another culture will not loose their dignity.

...there is a need at times for vanity as that makes some a more productive member of society. And to dispute this while also upholding it is contradictory by any definition.

The simple fact remains we all pay less, everyone of us, than you in America. If that wont convince you nothing will. It constantly needs fine tuning and public debate but we are all grateful for its benefits.

I had, when in my twenties, what was thought a rare tropical disease. I was slowly dying and needed expert diagnosis, they discovered it to be simply Brucellosis, I survived. I have contributed to this same system for fifty years. It has saved my wife from breast cancer and has delivered my three children. Now I don't know if I owe them or they owe me but I'm eternally grateful for this excellent system.

Yes, it has saved my life too, so I happen to think it was worth it.

And another thing I like about it is that children aren't at a disadvantage because of the irresponsibility (or unfortunate situation or whatever) of their parents.

Dave I appreciate choice is a problem for those who oppose this concept. It does not appear to bother them on other concepts that we see used by governments. Coast guards play the part of the saviour on the high seas for the boat owner. Do they refuse a tow or a rescue, those who oppose through freedom of choice? The fireman who comes willingly to their burning house or the policeman that protects their family.

I cant imagine not having it ,it must be a terrible burden for the struggling parent, my heart goes out to them. Its like we are debating a third world country.

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?
2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?
3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?
4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?
6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?
7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?
2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?
3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?
4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?
6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?
7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?
2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?
3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?
4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?
6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?
7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

Here is a list of some questions that I believe we can each give short answers to and clearify some issues. Note that I've specefied 'American' government when talking about this issue since all governments handle situations differently and so a qualifier was needed. I would like to hear opinions from Khethil, EmporerNero, xris, Rwa001, Dave Allen, and salima on this one. Thank you

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?
2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?
3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?
4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?
6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?
7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

Though a lot of the countries mentioned as having public health systems also have something like full employment

1. Assuming that health care did not come at the expense of your livelihood, do you wish that everyone had healthcare?

2. Should those that deserve it get the care that they need (via private or public resources)?

3. Should the private industry, the American government, or both help out?

4. Is the American government efficient enouph to handle health care? Responsibly?

6. Are mandates seen as too much American government encroachment?

7. Do you want health care reform in America (not neccessarily the bill that was just signed)?

Some socialist nations function? Yeah, and some don't.
Your side is cherry-picking the nations that are being used as examples.

Your side is arguing as if the only influence that determines a nations success is whether it is socialist or not. Nothing else matters. Geography, climate, resources, population, neighbor relations, culture - all irrelevant! If the nicest tiny island nations on earth happen to be socialist, that clearly proves the superiority of socialism. - That's not even a very subtle instance of mistaking correlation and causation. That's like saying that being the governor of California makes you a better bodybuilder, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the proof!

Btw. by what definition is Denmark more socialist than the US? The share of government spending is not much lower in the US. And actually life is regulated a lot more. If you think the US if a failure, how about a socialist failure?

I wouldn't need to wish for everyone to have it if the problem were solved in the way that it should be solved. The US government is the cause for sky rocketing health care costs. They created the problem, the solution isn't forced health care insurance. The solution is to force the government out of causing the problem. But that will never happen because they want to control.



It should be like anything else. If you need it, you should be able to afford it. It shouldn't be forced upon you and you shouldn't have to pay if you don't want to. It should be like any other service. If you need it, it should be available to anyone. But the government has caused the problems so it has become unaffordable and that was intentional.



The government should only handle laws and court cases upholding contracts. It should stay out of businesses and any services outside what I just stated..



Clearly no. Look at social security. It is bankrupt this year. Medicare is also a failure because the government doesn't care about the people. These are just ponzi schemes to create tax revenue. This new health care system is just another ponzi scheme.



This is inevitable because politicians always want more and more control. The founding fathers of the US knew this well and we are seeing their warnings coming about.



The only reform I would accept is one that did not come from the government program. Instead it would come by means of the government stepping out of business dealings.

What has the economic down fall of Greece got to do with a national health system.

What has Arnold got to do with a social programme?

Your system is failing you, tell me why?

Greece is going broke because they ran out of money for all the social programs. Like health care.
Britain just had to slash it's defense budget by 20% because they have no money.



It was an analogy on Dave Allen's logic.



It's not a free market system. Too much government intervention.

Tell me why are you opposed to a national insurance scheme if it serves every one at a lower cost, is it just your principles?

What government? is it a common to all governments or is it just the opposition to change that gives you problems?

Some socialist nations function?

Yeah, and some don't.
Your side is cherry-picking the nations that are being used as examples.

Your side is arguing as if the only influence that determines a nations success is whether it is socialist or not.

Nothing else matters. Geography, climate, resources, population, neighbor relations, culture - all irrelevant!

If the nicest tiny island nations on earth happen to be socialist, that clearly proves the superiority of socialism.

That's not even a very subtle instance of mistaking correlation and causation.

Btw. by what definition is Denmark more socialist than the US?

Greece is going broke because they ran out of money for all the social programs. Like health care.
Britain just had to slash it's defense budget by 20% because they have no money.

It was an analogy on Dave Allen's logic.

I don't think socialized health care actually does save cost. Not that I deny the accuracy of your numbers. But I think it is more complicated than that. Partly socialized health care just amounts to price control. For example you mentioned that government can more aggressively bargain with drug companies, and doctors get paid less.

Opposition to change? What are you talking about? I am saying that over time governments destroy themselves and we are witnessing in the US a breaking down of the US government. I say it is currently in it's death throws and the leaders know it. They just want to get as much money out of it while they can and jump ship leaving the poor to suffer.

All governments over time will ultimately collapse or be forced to reform in some manor. This reform is not in the silent over time type of reform it is usually unseen or unexpected. The leaders usually never see it coming before it happens. They might suspect it possible but are never ready when it happens.

I think there should be some help for actual poor people. We are a rich enough society to not let people die. But most people are worse off when we are supplied by the government.
I don't think socialized health care actually does save cost. Not that I deny the accuracy of your numbers. But I think it is more complicated than that. Partly socialized health care just amounts to price control. For example you mentioned that government can more aggressively bargain with drug companies, and doctors get paid less.
If government decided that bread may only cost half of what it costs today, we would initially have cheaper bread, but nobody would be willing to produce it at a loss. So we have less bread than if the government had not made that law. I think the same applies to doctors, drugs and medical equipment as well. The reasons it is supposed to be cheaper is merely government declaring it should be cheaper. It would lead to shortages. For example people don't want to be doctors, because they won't get paid enough. Or that medical equipment doesn't get invented, because there's no money to earn on that.
I think we have just not seen the negative effects of these price controls so much in Europe, because all the money on health care is earned in the US. It's like the bread factory earns most of their money in the US. That pays for running the factory, so they can afford to send off some bread to Europe at lower prices. But in a sense the high US bread price is paying for Europe to have cheap bread. One market is subsidizing the other market. If the US established the same price controls as Europe, the bread company could not afford to operate the ovens. So nobody would have bread. I don't mean to lecture you on economics, but does that make sense? Do you agree?