McCain Health Plan would strip millions of coverage

my2hands

lazymoon13 wrote:

I agree. helping people is a huge motivating factor. but people still need to make money to live.

health professionals in single payer systems in europe are doing just fine...

lazymoon13

my2hands wrote:

health professionals in single payer systems in europe are doing just fine...

I'm sure they are. they get paychecks

Commy

lazymoon13 wrote:

I agree. helping people is a huge motivating factor. but people still need to make money to live.

I'm not suggesting doctors shouldn't get paid. Even under a UHC plan doctors would still get paid. Even under a complete socialized plan doctors would still get paid. Tax pollution, end corporate welfare, cut into the defense budget, etc.

my2hands

lazymoon13 wrote:

I'm sure they are. they get paychecks

right, so whats your point? doctors are still making more then enough in single payer systems...people are not working for free in health care fields in single payer systems... so whats your point about putting food on the table?

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Yeah, lets have a health care system where individuals pay for it. WHy shouldn't we make a profit from human lives?

:rolleyes:

I'll respect statements like the above when you've trained to become a doctor on your dime and give away your services for nothing. If you don't like for-profit doctors or health care providers, don't use them.

Universal Heatlh Care is very easily attainable, especially in the US. Meanmwhile we are ranked outside of Nambia and some other third world countires.

And ranked ahead of many nations that have UHC (Cuba, S Korea, etc).

What do we say about the families that couldn't afford to save their daughters and sons, here in this 'free' country.

"Free" does not equate to getting whatever you need at any time.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

With a strong sense of community-take Cuba for example-the motivation for helping one another becomes evident. Cuba has more trained doctors operating around the world than any other country, over 20,000. Think they are working to make a profit? Are they helping people?

Yet Cuba trails the US in the very same health index you used above to support UHC.

To be a part of something bigger than the individual holds a strong motivating capacity.

Hey, that mindset certainly worked for slavery, or the crusades, or suicide bombings!

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

The difference is that we (or at least I) wouldn't stand in your way if you wanted to go in a shared-risk direction. All I'm asking for, in terms of healthcare, is to be able to find my preferred option in the market and not be forced to pay for other people's healthcare. If you dislike that approach and want to be part of a shared-risk system, I certainly have no desire or right to stop you.

so ... hypothetically ... say - you opt out of any insurance plan and you get into an accident where you need medical help - and you don't have enough money to pay for your life-saving situation ... what should the "public" do?

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Yet Cuba trails the US in the very same health index you used above to support UHC.

Yet Cuba has more trained doctors operating around the world than the US.

Hey, that mindset certainly worked for slavery, or the crusades, or suicide bombings!

Yeah, and in each case the authority involved the minority making decisions for the majority.

lazymoon13

my2hands wrote:

right, so whats your point? doctors are still making more then enough in single payer systems...people are not working for free in health care fields in single payer systems... so whats your point about putting food on the table?

you havent been paying attention to our conversation. go away

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

so ... hypothetically ... say - you opt out of any insurance plan and you get into an accident where you need medical help - and you don't have enough money to pay for your life-saving situation ... what should the "public" do?

Whatever the "public" wants. The "public" doesn't owe me shit in your above hypothetical.

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Yet Cuba has more trained doctors operating around the world than the US.

Are you suggesting that US doctors should be forced to work in foreign countries against their will and at the expense of US patients?

Regardless, you laud Cuba's UHC system and then chastize the US's health rankings, even though Cuba trails the US in those rankings.

Yeah, and in each case the authority involved the minority making decisions for the majority.

What? In each case, you have large populations (whites and religious zealots) pushing their values on smaller populations (blacks and heretics / infidels).

UHC will be no different. You'll have a majority pushing their values and their responsibilities onto the wealthy or onto those who simply don't wish to be part of the system.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

Are you suggesting that US doctors should be forced to work in foreign countries against their will and at the expense of US patients?

Regardless, you laud Cuba's UHC system and then chastize the US's health rankings, even though Cuba trails the US in those rankings.

Given Cuba's standing in the HC rankings, and their resources, it is hard to imagine helping others at that stage, yet they do, and do it better than any other country on the planet. Internally they need some wrok, granted.

What? In each case, you have large populations (whites and religious zealots) pushing their values on smaller populations (blacks and heretics / infidels).

UHC will be no different. You'll have a majority pushing their values and their responsibilities onto the wealthy or onto those who simply don't wish to be part of the system.

In each case you have the minority in charge-the church, the market, deciding the course of action for the majority-the crusades, slavery. You think the majority of people involved in the crusades or slavery benefitted from those things?

UHC works in France. It works in many countries. And it can work in the US too.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Whatever the "public" wants. The "public" doesn't owe me shit in your above hypothetical.

so ... you would be ok to be left for dead then?

farfromglorified

Commy wrote:

Given Cuba's standing in the HC rankings, and their resources, it is hard to imagine helping others at that stage, yet they do, and do it better than any other country on the planet. Internally they need some wrok, granted.

They don't "do it better" than any other country on the planet. They do it rather terribly. Sending a bunch of poorly trained doctors around the world to give immunizations and basic medical services is certainly nice, but it's not high-end medicine they're practicing and many of the doctors are actually very poorly trained. Furthermore, your above statement seems to imply that their international work and their internal work are somehow unrelated and that these international campaigns aren't in part causing the shortages within their nation.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question so I'll repeat it:

Are you suggesting that US doctors should be forced to work in foreign countries against their will and at the expense of US patients?

In each case you have the minority in charge-the church, the market, deciding the course of action for the majority-the crusades, slavery.

Hehe..."the church" is not a minority. "The church" is an organization. It is an organization full of many people. Same goes for the "market". You can't reduce a majority to a minority by assigning them one name.

You think the majority of people involved in the crusades or slavery benefitted from those things?

They benefited in the sense that they forced other people to bend to their will. I'm sure the crusades made many people feel absolutely safe and wonderful about their silly convictions. I'm sure slavery provided a lot of cheap clothing to people who wanted it. I'm sure suicide bombers are very satisfied with their afterlife. These "benefits" are irrelevant to the morality of their means.

UHC works in France. It works in many countries. And it can work in the US too.

How does it "work"? People there are denied coverage. They often overpay for medicine via high tax burdens. They have aenemic health industries. They have to import lots of doctors. There is often rationing and long waits. This is not to say that the US's current system doesn't have these same problems (it certainly does), but I don't understand why people chastise the US system based on these problems and then celebrate UHC systems even though they suffer from the same problems.

Furthermore, people seem to always imply that UHC works everywhere that has it. It doesn't. Plenty of nations with UHC rank behind the US in nearly every health index.

Certainly UHC could "work" here. The problem is that few people seem to have any actual definition of work.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

so ... you would be ok to be left for dead then?

I certainly don't want to be dead, no. But if you're asking me if I'd be ok with society leaving me for dead in the event that I opted out of providing society any value in exchange for helping me, I would certainly be ok with their decision.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

I certainly don't want to be dead, no. But if you're asking me if I'd be ok with society leaving me for dead in the event that I opted out of providing society any value in exchange for helping me, I would certainly be ok with their decision.

I think that value comes in helping someone. I guess you don't.

baraka

my2hands wrote:

health professionals in single payer systems in europe are doing just fine...

Yeah, I work for a US socialized health care system, the Department for Veteran Affairs, and I get paid significantly more there than I did at any of my other comparable positions in other health care systems. We are currently growing our lab and as a result needed more Chemists, Microbiologists, Cytotechnologists, & Histotechnologists. We got one of the best Pathologists in the area to come work for us. We had no problem 'stealing' them from the other health care systems in the area. And, uh, our benefits are far superior.

Commy

farfromglorified wrote:

They don't "do it better" than any other country on the planet. They do it rather terribly. Sending a bunch of poorly trained doctors around the world to give immunizations and basic medical services is certainly nice, but it's not high-end medicine they're practicing and many of the doctors are actually very poorly trained. Furthermore, your above statement seems to imply that their international work and their internal work are somehow unrelated and that these international campaigns aren't in part causing the shortages within their nation.

Sending doctors to Africa has somehow become casual in your world. Yeah, lets forget about the less fortunate and focus on our selves, selfishness reigns apparently.

If you could focus for a second, pretend you are a member of the human race- not american, not african, but a member of the human race-you would send your doctors where they are needed most. In this case its Africa-where millions are dying form easily curable diseases and starvation.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question so I'll repeat it:

Are you suggesting that US doctors should be forced to work in foreign countries against their will and at the expense of US patients?

Doctors shiould be where they are needed most.

Hehe..."the church" is not a minority. "The church" is an organization. It is an organization full of many people. Same goes for the "market". You can't reduce a majority to a minority by assigning them one name.

They benefited in the sense that they forced other people to bend to their will. I'm sure the crusades made many people feel absolutely safe and wonderful about their silly convictions. I'm sure slavery provided a lot of cheap clothing to people who wanted it. I'm sure suicide bombers are very satisfied with their afterlife. These "benefits" are irrelevant to the morality of their means.

Given little fact here I can't agree with any of it. Your opinion is interesting, but not the way it works. Slavery and the crusades benefited the minority, the few in charge, as its always been. So it goes.

How does it "work"? People there are denied coverage. They often overpay for medicine via high tax burdens. They have aenemic health industries. They have to import lots of doctors. There is often rationing and long waits. This is not to say that the US's current system doesn't have these same problems (it certainly does), but I don't understand why people chastise the US system based on these problems and then celebrate UHC systems even though they suffer from the same problems.

Again your opinion with little fact. From what I"ve seen of France's health care system it is very thorough.

Furthermore, people seem to always imply that UHC works everywhere that has it. It doesn't. Plenty of nations with UHC rank behind the US in nearly every health index.

With the resources available to the US they should rank below us. THat's no accomplishment. THat's like taking credit for something your supposed to be doing anyway. "I take care of my kids". No shit dumbass, your suppposed too.

Certainly UHC could "work" here. The problem is that few people seem to have any actual definition of work.

And paying to live doesn't seem to be working.

Solat13

my2hands wrote:

right, so whats your point? doctors are still making more then enough in single payer systems...people are not working for free in health care fields in single payer systems... so whats your point about putting food on the table?

Well considering almost 25% of our physicians are from outside the US who have come to America to practice for better training and higher salaries, switching to a system in which doctors receive lower salaries than they receive now would mean less doctors in America.

Part of the reason for the wait times in Canada to see a doctor is that 1/9 Canadian doctors who graduate medical school there practice in America because they make more money.

Having lower paid doctors would at first cause a shortage of doctors as we would lose many foreign doctors and many would stop practicing because of rising malpractice insurance costs.

Then you have the problem I learned about in college firsthand. Many of my friends who were pre-med said that if the US ever went to universal healthcare they would just go to the white collar Wall Street route because it wasn't worth paying for 10 years of school to not be rewarded in the end. So instead of getting the most brilliant minds going into medicine you would get lesser doctors. Of course this might be an isolated scenario because I went to an Ivy League school with a top notch business program, but still the loss of even a few potential quality doctors is a loss to a great many Americans.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think that value comes in helping someone. I guess you don't.

I do. But the question isn't being posed about what I value. The question is about what "the public" values. Should I assume my values onto "the public"?