Bill Clinton calls U.S. healthcare immoral

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Well, it's bending the will of hundreds of millions to millions

Hundreds of millions to tens of millions.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course. As are we, in certain respects.

If we want to catalogue the "illnesses" of societies, sure. There's no sure fire cure for all the problems that will arrise in the course of history. But, comparitively, the U.S. isn't any more or less healthy than most of the West. A bit richer, perhaps, but with a currency that's slightly lower than the Euro and half the value of the Pound - currencies used in countries with universal healthcare, so an economic collapse isn't a guarantee if we implement it here. Also, our death rates are a bit disheartening when compared to the rest of the West. To me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Hundreds of millions to tens of millions.

Hehe

If we want to catalogue the "illnesses" of societies, sure. There's no sure fire cure for all the problems that will arrise in the course of history. But, comparitively, the U.S. isn't any more or less healthy than most of the West. A bit richer, perhaps, but with a currency that's slightly lower than the Euro and half the value of the Pound - currencies used in countries with universal healthcare, so an economic collapse isn't a guarantee if we implement it here. Also, our death rates are a bit disheartening when compared to the rest of the West. To me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot.

We won't have an "economic collapse" in this nation with UHC, just like you won't have an "economic collapse" if I rob you occassionally.

I don't really disagree with your core premise here: "to me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot". My problem is that you're speaking in "we" and "us" outside your authority -- the individual wills of all involved. It makes me ill.

farfromglorified

cornnifer wrote:

The point is, IMO, the government has the not only the capability, but the responsibility to provide healthcare to ALL of its citizens.

Huh? You have the capability to be a doctor who works for free. Why haven't you done this?

And where do you find this "responsibility"?

Not just those who can afford it (which is becoming harder and harder for many to do). For the government to be fully capable of providing this, and not do it, is, in fact void of moral responsibility.

The government is fully capable of lots of things, yes. Capability and morality are not the same thing and a government, in and of itself, is not a moral body. The people that comprise that government and who shape it are moral agents.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe



We won't have an "economic collapse" in this nation with UHC, just like you won't have an "economic collapse" if I rob you occassionally.

I don't really disagree with your core premise here: "to me, it stands to reason that if we can help ourselves in one respect without tanking ourselves in the other, we should give it a shot". My problem is that you're speaking in "we" and "us" outside your authority -- the individual wills of all involved. It makes me ill.

Well, if we had universal healthcare, treatment for that illness of yours would already be paid for, and likely for less than your current premiums if you have any.

The individual wills of all cannot be accounted for in any respect, let alone all respects. So our government tends to work on averages. We do it all the time - to lay roads, pay for the underprivilaged, keep up defense of the nation, deal with crime, etc. I know you don't agree with public financing of any of this, but philosophically UHC fits the mold of the things our nation does, socially. Stalwart individualism, while something that should definitely be encouraged and practiced whenever possible as a counter measure to group or state influence, isn't a tenable way to run a society.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Well, if we had universal healthcare, treatment for that illness of yours would already be paid for, and likely for less than your current premiums if you have any.

The individual wills of all cannot be accounted for in any respect, let alone all respects. So our government tends to work on averages. We do it all the time - to lay roads, pay for the underprivilaged, keep up defense of the nation, deal with crime, etc. I know you don't agree with public financing of any of this, but philosophically UHC fits the mold of the things our nation does, socially. Stalwart individualism, while something that should definitely be encouraged and practiced whenever possible as a counter measure to group or state influence, isn't a tenable way to run a society.

UHC does fit the mold. Completely.

mammasan

I know this may sound like a stupid question but can Universal Healthcare be provided without government involvment or at the least minimal government involvment. I ask this because I would love nothing more than to see affordable healthcare coverage for all but I don't want any government involvment simply because the government is a fiscal blackhole, money gets sucked in and nothing comes out the other end.

baraka

Schwarzenegger Proposes Universal Health Coverage
California Plan Could Cost State $12 Billion

By Sonya Geis and Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 9, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 8 -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Monday proposed a system of universal health insurance for Californians that would make the nation's most populous state the third to guarantee medical coverage for all its residents.

"Prices for health care and insurance are rising twice as fast as inflation, twice as fast as wages. That is a terrible drain on everyone, and it is a drain on our economy," Schwarzenegger said. "My solution is that everyone in California must have insurance. If you can't afford it, the state will help you buy it, but you must be insured."

Much of the opposition to Schwarzenegger's program, which requires legislative approval, is expected to come from his fellow Republicans, who object that the plan will be costly for small businesses. But the governor said California cannot afford not to do it. Nearly one in five California residents does not have health insurance -- a total of 6.5 million people, many of whom seek expensive care in emergency rooms.

Nationwide, the ranks of the uninsured are growing. Census figures show that a record 46.6 million Americans, including 8.3 million children, had no health insurance in 2005, up from 45.3 million in 2004. Among those who did have coverage, fewer were receiving it through their jobs as employers scaled back their health plans.

Analysts say the California proposal is illustrative of the resurgence of interest among politicians at all levels in expanding health coverage to the uninsured and that it provides fresh evidence that, with Congress stalled on enacting comprehensive health-care reform, the states are beginning to take matters into their own hands.

In the past year, Massachusetts and Vermont have passed laws requiring all their residents to obtain health insurance, with help from the state if necessary. Other states considering expanding coverage to reduce the number of uninsured include Washington, Montana, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Illinois.

"Health care for the uninsured is back on the agenda," said Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that researches health-care issues. "The governors are trying to lead the way, but it's also going to take national action to try to address this problem."

Schwarzenegger's plan would require everyone living in California -- even illegal immigrants -- to have health insurance, at an estimated cost of $12 billion. Individuals who refuse to carry insurance could face reductions in their state income tax refunds or the garnishment of their wages. All businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer coverage or pay a fee of 4 percent of their payroll into a fund to help the uninsured buy health insurance.

Schwarzenegger also recommended expanding the state's existing program for children's health insurance to families that earn less than three times the poverty level, or about $60,000 for a family of four.

The governor also wants to force insurers to offer coverage to people with existing medical conditions. Currently many insurers will not cover older people, those with major illnesses or even people with relatively minor complaints such as asthma or varicose veins.

Schwarzenegger also would require insurance providers to use 85 percent of their premium proceeds on patient care.

The state would increase reimbursements to doctors and hospitals by a total of $4 billion. Money for the program would come from new taxes on doctors (2 percent of their revenue) and hospitals (4 percent), federal funds, and county funds that now pay for emergency care for the uninsured.

In addition to objections from small business, Schwarzenegger is sure to face opposition to taxes on doctors and hospitals, additional regulation of insurance providers and the extension of coverage to illegal immigrants.

"Imposing a new jobs tax on employers of any size and expanding costly government mandates is the wrong approach, one which will devastate our economy," the Assembly's Republican leader, Mike Villines, said in a statement Monday.

But Schwarzenegger said that while the plan will cost money, it will pump funds back into the health system because of the expanded coverage. "Everyone ends up with a better deal," he said.

Lee reported from Washington.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010800865.html?nav=hcmodule

my2hands

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course healthcare is a large part of bankruptcies. Healthcare is very expensive. Expensive houses are also a large part of bankruptcies. Should we give away free mansions?

that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg


you act as if universal health care is unheard of?

some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.

boxwine_in_hell

my2hands wrote:

that is one pitiful, and weak analogy


you act as if universal health care is unheard of?

some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAT too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still maming payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.

Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm certainly playing devil's advocate and not actually proposing those things. However, your reaction to those things should tell you much about my reaction to UHC.

See the article I just posted. I'd like to hear your critique of it.

farfromglorified wrote:

This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is not a single problem with our system. There are millions of problems with our system, each measured by the individual's standards.

Oh, I agree. Although, I really can't fathom why anyone would be against a proposed system that could potentially help so many.

farfromglorified wrote:

No, I don't see a problem with this. Here's why:

Health care is a service. It is certainly an important service, but it is still a service. Demand for health care services is at an all time high while supplies have not increased proportionally, meaning prices should be at all-time levels.

And can you tell me why that is?

farfromglorified wrote:

Comparing US prices to nations with price controls and restricted markets is foolish and makes no sense. If I steal cars for everyone in my town and tell you that cars in my town are cheaper than yours, what have I proved about my virtues?

Please explain your analogy here and how it applies.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course healthcare is a large part of bankruptcies. Healthcare is very expensive. Expensive houses are also a large part of bankruptcies. Should we give away free mansions?

I don't look at health care as a luxury item. I think you should consider separating the two.

surferdude

my2hands wrote:

that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg


you act as if universal health care is unheard of?

some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.

What level of healthcare is needed? Do we all pay to have a sliver removed from your finger? Do we all pay for a liver transplant that is required after you've destroyed your liver drinking? Do we pay to keep you hooked up to resporators and the like for 20 years because your family can't let go?

farfromglorified

my2hands wrote:

that is one pitiful, and weak analogy... mansions are not a need, decent and affordable health care is an absolute need. step your game up ffg

No, healthcare is not an "absolute need" anymore than a mansion is. Food is an absolute need. Shelter is an absolute need. Water is an absolute need. Everything else is a conditional need, a whim, a desire, or a want.

you act as if universal health care is unheard of?

I certainly do not.

some personal experience. a close friend of mine owns his own small business. he has a child and family he is supporting. insurance for him was WAY too expensive to carry, especially having to provide food for a family. so one day he gets hurt ar work, shoots a nail through his big toe. he goes to the hospital to have it removed. medical bill came, it was $10,000. he had to finance this, and is still making payments. we are talking about a man that has a family, and works hard, 40+ a week in the "richest country in world history" yet he has to struggle and finance $10k to have a nail removed. i think that is bullshit, healthcare and insurance should not be too expensive FOR ANYBODY. especially a productive person working full time raising a family.

If you think healthcare should be less expensive, then provide it.

chopitdown

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Europeans get UHC but they also pay about 50-55% income tax. Granted they get like 6-8 weeks of vacation. It's a tough call. I'm not sure I want to give up 50% of my income so everyone can have healthcare. That may be callous, but I'm just being honest.

I agree...and further where is this extra money going to come from? A majority of people in the US are now going to college and graduating with a lot of debt. so in addition to a car payment, house payment / rent, and college loan repayment, savings we're now supposed to find more money to pay for everyone to have healthcare? We'd end up bankrupting a lot of people and in turn a lot of business. Now, if the insurance companies could cut costs and cut profits, we might be able to do something...It's a great idea to have universal healthcare but the impact of paying for it would be much greater than we can imagine, imo.

my2hands

farfromglorified wrote:

No, healthcare is not an "absolute need" anymore than a mansion is. Food is an absolute need. Shelter is an absolute need. Water is an absolute need. Everything else is a conditional need, a whim, a desire, or a want.

i disagree, i guess when you break your arm medical attention is not a need? or if you have a stroke, medical care is not a need? give me a break

If you think healthcare should be less expensive, then provide it.

your argument is getting weaker...

i would have no problem with helpng fund universal health care with my tax dollars.

my2hands

surferdude wrote:

What level of healthcare is needed? Do we all pay to have a sliver removed from your finger? Do we all pay for a liver transplant that is required after you've destroyed your liver drinking? Do we pay to keep you hooked up to resporators and the like for 20 years because your family can't let go?

you would figure after thousands of years, the human race would not mind providing each other with health care, whether small or large. but i guess some of us are "me, me, me" oriented and some of us are "us, us, us" oriented

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

See the article I just posted. I'd like to hear your critique of it.

Are you talking about the California proposal article?

Oh, I agree. Although, I really can't fathom why anyone would be against a proposed system that could potentially help so many.

I can't take much more of this logic....it's permeating this board lately worse than usual.

Something that "could potentially help so many" is not justified by that help. Help is not a moral standard. If I shoot you, it may certainly help someone else. If I rob your neighbor, it might certainly help you. Genocide can be very helpful to some. Those actions are not justified by whom they help. They are unjust because they are contradictory with the values they are meant to uphold.

Universal Health Care implies that society owns the services of its doctors and others in the medical profession, along with the property required to support the system. Through that implication and the force you'll apply to make it a reality, no one can own those services. People may only struggle over them.

And can you tell me why that is?

Because people have literally been inventing demand. We've invented new products and procedures and marketed the hell out of them. Many of those products and procedures are limited to a few places or providers. The basic rules of supply and demand apply just as much to healthcare as they do any other product or service.

Please explain your analogy here and how it applies.

UHC in other nations is typically marked by price fixing by the state and expropriation of wealth to support the system. It is direct action against the market. Comparing prices within a free or relatively free market to those in a controlled system is pointless and ridiculous. So, if I have a system where I simply steal cars or set their prices, telling someone that my cars are "cheaper" is meaningless. They aren't "cheaper" -- I'm simply forcing someone else to pay the cost.

I don't look at health care as a luxury item. I think you should consider separating the two.

Why don't you look at health care as a luxury item? It has all the makings of a luxury item. It is provided by skilled workers. It is highly desired.

It's easy to say that health care fulfills a basic desire (the desire to live), and that is partly true. But that doesn't mean it isn't a luxury item. Caviar fulfills basic desires too.

mammasan

mammasan wrote:

I know this may sound like a stupid question but can Universal Healthcare be provided without government involvment or at the least minimal government involvment. I ask this because I would love nothing more than to see affordable healthcare coverage for all but I don't want any government involvment simply because the government is a fiscal blackhole, money gets sucked in and nothing comes out the other end.

So I guess it was a stupid question since I didn't get any answers

farfromglorified

my2hands wrote:

i disagree, i guess when you break your arm medical attention is not a need? or if you have a stroke, medical care is not a need? give me a break

Absoulte need, as you said, presupposes an absolute condition. Without food, I cannot live. Without water, I cannot live. Without shelter, I cannot live. Without healthcare, I can most certainly live in many conditions.

your argument is getting weaker...

i would have no problem with helpng fund universal health care with my tax dollars.

Then fund it. I would never suggest you have no right to fund universal health care.

farfromglorified

mammasan wrote:

So I guess it was a stupid question since I didn't get any answers

Hehe...it wasn't a stupid question.

Universal health care cannot be provided absent "government" so long as the will of the desirer and the will of the provider do not agree. Government is in quotes there to represent social force, since that could come in forms not necessarily referred to as government.

The bottom line is that UHC, as people use the word, is only accomplished via charity, or via force. UHC, as I would use it, is accomplished via a market wherein anyone may exchange a value for an equal value of healthcare. But that's not a UHC system wherein people have a "right" to healthcare.

mammasan

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...it wasn't a stupid question.

Universal health care cannot be provided absent "government" so long as the will of the desirer and the will of the provider do not agree. Government is in quotes there to represent social force, since that could come in forms not necessarily referred to as government.

The bottom line is that UHC, as people use the word, is only accomplished via charity, or via force. UHC, as I would use it, is accomplished via a market wherein anyone may exchange a value for an equal value of healthcare. But that's not a UHC system wherein people have a "right" to healthcare.

Thank you. I merely thought that instead of running around in circle debating a topic to death, government funded UNC which will probably never happen in our lifetime, we could look to alternative way of providing the same benefit without having it forced on all.