|
Post by Jangles on Oct 26, 2009 20:34:11 GMT -8
I think cats should have free healthcare too.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 26, 2009 20:54:23 GMT -8
So, 401K plans (and IRA's) are handout's? ;D Carlton, if you don't know the difference between an investment account and a government aid program, I would request your money back from any and all education institutions you attended. On a more serious note, why are you lauding government programs that are either failures (Amtrak assistance hasn't served to make Amtrak any more of a success) or soon-to-be bankruptcies (U.S. Post Office lost $2.8 billion last year)? People, allowing a program to operate in the red year after year is not a solution...it's a fast-track to devalued currency and a loss of wealth for your citizens. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 27, 2009 9:36:19 GMT -8
To Brendan,
I am posting this a 2nd time as for some reason, I cannot find the first post.
Issue 1: The statistics used for Medical outcomes are universal and scientific standards in my field Brendan, they do apply and they are objective.
While some points you raised regarding infant mortality are true, you omit a key factor. The single largest contributing factor is lack of affordable pre-natal care. I supervised a neonatal intensive care unit from 1987 – 1995. What I saw with these unfortunate women is, poor nutrition, no pre-natal care, poor living conditions = poor outcomes. They could not afford the care they needed. In the countries I cited, women do not have to give up eating or rent to seek medical care.
Brendan - ”Our morbidity rate due to heart disease does not automatically point to a lack of good heath care - perhaps it's also because Americans are the largest consumers of unhealthy food on the planet?”
Well if people could afford to have routine check-ups, we would have physician coaching and early diagnosis so we could begin cholesterol and high blood pressure management. In my field Brendan, early diagnosis and intervention are life prolonging. People would use their doctor routinely if they could afford it. A government plan would reward people for investing in their health. Today’s system punishes people financially for seeing a doctor, hence they do not go until it is too late.
Conclusion: We agree to disagree.
Issue 2: Despite your comments regarding the waste and inefficiency of the military, the fact remains it is the best in the world, it keeps us safe and dissuades adversary’s from attack. Contrary to your conclusion, it effectively fulfills its mission. Can it be made more efficient and less wasteful, of course! Government needs to hire efficiency experts as my industry does to cut out the waste and save tax payers money.
Conclusion: We agree top disagree
Issue 3: Brendan - “If government and insurance companies were taken out of the health care market system, prices would become realistic.”
This was also referenced by “Hook”. This is completely false! In pure capitalism, those that have income to purchase a product/service will do so, those without the income do not. So in the model you cited, the predictable would happen; the poor would go without, the rich would have service. Because demand would drop, health care lay-offs would take place, new capital purchases deferred, essential service lines discontinued, research crippled.
You clearly have no idea how sophisticated, technologically advanced and educated a work force we are. We do not come cheaply, nor should we. My staff, nursing staff, radiology staff, cardiology technicians etc. all command significant salaries. The equipment we use is state of the art, hospitals have significant overhead costs. The catheter, pace-makers, orthotic devices, drugs etc. all are expensive to make. To reduce the costs necessary for people to afford service on their own without insurance would mean massive salary cuts for health care workers, less technology, less equipment, less doctors and less nurses etc. Your model would destroy my industry and take medicine back to the dark ages.
In the early years of our nation each family was bonded to the land and self sufficient. In hard times the community would lend a helping hand. This paradigm idealized by conservatives ended with the urbanization of our society. In a modern urban society Brendan, most people and their families are now dependent upon an employer to survive. The key word is dependent. Too many employers are exploitive and do not pay a living wage. Rent, utilities, food and basic necessities are expensive and consume most household incomes. Most families cannot even save. As such I see the role of government in a capitalistic system assisting the working poor and the less fortunate.
In your purist capitalistic, individualistic model we have not a humane society, but the law of the jungle where the strong prey upon the weak, the rich exploit the masses, a divisive class structure and injustice. Read Dickens for the ‘good ole days’! We need capitalism, but its predatory and destructive impulses must be constrained by government for the protection of the citizenry.
Conclusion: We agree top disagree
Issue 4: Brendan - ”Medicare is all but bankrupt because of the amount of fraud and mis-management.”
Wrong! It is nearly bankrupt because our elected representatives stole it’s trust fund! If the trust fund had not been stolen, Medicare would be solvent until the next century.
Brendan - “If a government heath care system ends up like almost every other government program before it (broken and in need of desperate repair), the "many" will suffer (wait-lists, rationing, denial of access, etc.).”
Wrong. We have no waiting lists for our Medicare patients. My Medicare patients are quite happy with their coverage and care. Polling indicate well over the 70th percentile are “very satisfied” with their Medicare. Your argument that government cannot do it well is not supported by these findings. I concede there is fraud, but what is needed is funding for auditors and enforcement. When crime goes up, part of the solution is hiring more cops. The same principle applies here.
Conclusion: We agree to disagree
Issue 5: Perhaps you missed when I replied to Jon to say that obviously a certain amount of government assistance will be necessary - perhaps as the universal "catastrophic coverage" provider, perhaps in an expanded medicaid role, perhaps as a health care provider as a part of unemployment compensation. There would certainly be a role. But as the provider for the entire citizenry? I can only see disaster there...
Again, Europe and Japan are doing well and living longer Brendan. There may be waiting periods for non-emergent care, but not emergent care. People take their prescriptions unlike here where too many cannot afford them. They see their doctors more often and benefit from early diagnosis and treatment. Their system clearly works better.
As to long waiting periods for care. The UK overcame this problem in 2004 with more funding and programs to encourage and increase the number of doctors and health care workers. Their wait times, once terrible, are now comparable with ours. We do not have a lack of workers or doctors in this country Brendan which directly lead to long waiting periods.
Brendan - “Again, I put forth: a system that is based on the individual as the medical consumer instead of the insurance company, encourages health personal responsibility through incentives, addresses the issue of frivolous lawsuits, and lets the true free market dictate price and cost, and (I'll add this for those of you like Jon who find me heartless) limited government assistance for the poor and destitute who are held accountable for their health decisions.” lower than in the U.system
Brendan, you clearly do not know me and I believe you judge me harshly. I do not believe, nor have I ever said or implied that you are heartless. You have a principled belief system that I respect. Unlike demagogues such as Limbaugh, Beck and Palin, I believe reasonable people can disagree, that there is no single truth, and that we should not demonize, personalize or question the patriotism of the opposition. I believe in a civil society based upon mutual respect and spirited discourse.
Conclusion: we again agree to disagree.
Summary: An most interesting discussion centered upon the conflicting world views of individualism vs collectivism, the role of government and capitalism vs socialism. My world view arises from the three doctrinal pillars of my Christian ethos; compassion, love and brotherhood. You should not construe that I suggest that your beliefs lack these same virtues. I do not.
If you ever get to LA, we must crack open a bottle of Merlot and carry on the noble tradition of Hobbs and Locke by debating our different world views. We would both be better men for it!
All the best. those of you like Jon who find me heartless) limited government assistance for the poor and
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 27, 2009 13:22:06 GMT -8
While some points you raised regarding infant mortality are true, you omit a key factor. The single largest contributing factor is lack of affordable pre-natal care. But here Craig you're only focusing on the symptom and not the underlying problem - the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate of the developed world - far higher than the 'model' countries you referenced. Teen mothers are the most likely to lack the funds necessary for pre-natal care, so why are we not addressing the issue of teens having children and preventing other unplanned pregnancies? Putting a band-aid on a staff infection may cover the skin lesion, but it won't ever cure the real problem. Which leads me to my next point: Your first sentence is another example of treating symptoms, not problems, and your second sentence is actually the opposite of the truth. Currently, John Q. American eats poorly and doesn't exercise - if this results in him developing a medical problem, he is the one responsible for the consequences (paying for treatment, dealing with insurance, etc.). But in your system, you take away his responsibility to pay anything, and now he doesn't even have to think twice about the consequences! In the early days of Napster and file-sharing, people were stealing music. Then, Napster said, "Okay, if you would like to download music, here is a monthly fee you can pay (regardless of how much you download) and you can continue". But did that stop music stealing? No. People went to Limewire and now to Pirate Bay and torrents. Online music stealing continued because it was still available without consequences. You're ignoring my stance that government can and should (and currently do) help the poor. I don't disagree. But the plan you suggest removes all market forces from the field. Removing market forces has proven that it will do exactly the things you warned against just now - lower wages, create shortages, stifle research, and on and on. Currently, medical prices are ridiculously high and artificially high via all kinds of insurance ponzi schemes. No one even knows what any medical service actually costs! Entering a larger government role into this equation will solve nothing in relation to inflated, artificial costs. This isn't my opinion, it's economic fact via the laws of supply, demand and the advancement of technologies becoming smaller, cheaper and more efficient. I noticed you ignored my example of government price controls of gasoline in the 1970's... That's exactly what I said: mis-management. Why do you want to put the health care of all people in the hands of a government who raids its own programs designed to provide health care!? That reads as pure insanity to me. That's great for them, but let's compare apples to apples please. Your proposal is to cover all Americans so look at the countries you cite who cover all of their citizens: Canada, Cuba, France, Spain, Japan - all continually report wait lists and a variety of problems associated with them. We don't have wait lists for emergency care either, and all who walk into an emergency room in the U.S. receive care. So again, let's please remain honest here and compare apples to apples - and the apples in universal health care countries in non-emergency care involve wait lists, rationing, lack of funds, and a whole litany of problems you keep ignoring... Ah yes, the ultimate answer: 'more funding'. Let's be clear: More funding = higher taxes. The facts of history have shown that higher and higher taxes create a very slippery slope if allowed to run their course. Higher taxes result in less business being done, which results in less hiring, which results in higher unemployment, which results in a larger drain on government assistance programs, which results in a lack of funding (not to mention a steep drop in contributions of citizens to charities that assist the poor), which results in the necessity to raise taxes and the cycle continues to spiral down and down and down. We've reached the crux of our back-and-forth. You continue: Collectivism and socialism always 'sound' nice, but mankind has proven throughout history that it isn't capable of properly seeing them through without corruption and the result has always been a negative one. There is a reason the United States was able to rise to its position of power and influence and that is because of the liberty this country promises the individual. But liberty is not necessarily a positive for all people - liberty demands very hard work for success, it demands perseverence in the face of opposition and setbacks, and it demands sacrifice for one's own individual priorities. The Declaration of Independence didn't say men were entitled to a 'Guarantee of Happiness', it said a 'Pursuit of Happiness'. To remove more and more of an individual's liberty and self-determination is to remove the basis upon which this country was built. The government's role of protection for its citizens has (I believe rightly) extended into the realm of assistance for the poor and needy - but in that assistance we've started to lose sight of the promise of Liberty and instead created a class of people who are dependant on government for their individual needs in daily life. This is a perversion of our system. Health care is an individual need in daily life and one that the individual should be responsible for just as we are responsible individually for many other things we need for our very survival: food, shelter and clothing. The government's role also is to ensure that the system remains fair and I think we both agree it has failed to do this as well - it has allowed prices to become artificially inflated and insurance companies to create chaos in a system that, decades ago, was a simple relationship between doctor and patient. Your claim of ethos, compassion, love and brotherhood is noble and no one can dispute that those are traits we should all emulate. But is it truly compassionate to create a system which has been shown to be unsustainable and cause hardships in the long term? Is it truly compassionate to simply trade one set of problems we currently have for a whole new set of problems that come with a new system? Wouldn't the most compassionate thing to do be to solve the problem of what's preventing people from having health care instead of merely treating the symptom of the fact that they can't get the treatment they need? The current system is broken - of that there is no doubt. But in solving it, let's turn to our country's greatest asset: our individualism and liberty. The government can be there to play referee....not to play mommy. -Brendan
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on Oct 27, 2009 14:56:57 GMT -8
Well spoken, Brendan.
The monetary cost for this program is astronomical, and I have no faith that the government can handle such an undertaking without completely destroying the country in the process. What isn't being said here is how the cost of socialized health care will affect our national deficit.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 27, 2009 17:16:30 GMT -8
Then they shouldn't get knocked up in the first place? Why would anyone ever think of bringing a child into this world if they can't properly take care of it? It's not like buying a pet---shoot, people are irresponsible enough with pets they can't afford.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 27, 2009 18:34:51 GMT -8
TJ, you're all heart.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 27, 2009 18:56:14 GMT -8
Well Brendan, a powerful advocacy for your perspective. Well it is clearly obvious that we are at different parts of life's path. You are quite young and have yet to experience the cruel inequities, horrific injustice and unbearable suffering that this transitory mortal existence affords. I have in my 55 years seen and perhaps endured more than my lot. I have personally suffered the pestal that grinds us in the cold crucible of life from which the soul is tested and transformed.
I have come to know that we dominate this planet because we are a social species. Unlike the lion and other 'individualistic' predators, we dominate because we care for each other, because we have empathy, because we care and support the collective.
I would argue that a system that places individual perogatives and needs above the welfare of the collective is anti-human. As humans, we must transcend the law of the jungle, the domination and exploitation of the strong over the weak. And so I favor methods and systems that care for and provide compassion for those of us born into poverty, of broken homes, of dysfunctional and violent families that fill our nation with uncounted casualties.
In the early 20th century government stepped in because private donations could not keep pace with the deplorable societal conditions. Government filled a void, a cruel reality born of the industrial revolution. Remove government, and we return to Dicken's world. Have you read his novels? Do you appreciate the cruelty, the inequity, the exploitation, the dehumanization, the hopelessness created by unbridled capitalism?
In the final analysis I belive God will weigh and judge the sincerity and efforts of our herats by how we have sought and fought to bring justice, equality and compassion to our bretheren, but also how often we to turned the other way, ignored and cleverly rationalized reasons to withold assistance, love and compassion for those less fortunate.
I would rather fail being exploited and taken advantage of, than finding intellectual solace in preaching the anti-Christian precept "God helps those that help themselves". As human beings, we help each other. That is why we have dominion over all other species and this planet. I try to follow the example God modeled; unconditional love, unconditional compassion, unconditional empathy. As such I believe government as an expression of humanity must also express and embody these principles.
I am all talked out. I do not know if I have in any way made an impression on you or elicited a thoughtful re-examination of your belief system. Time will tell, and from my heart, I must say that I have enjoyed the discourse. All the best my young friend.
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Oct 27, 2009 22:21:59 GMT -8
Craig, I appreciate your sensitivity and compassion for your fellow man, but I must say I am a bit surprised that you don't have more historical perspective for the kind of governmental system you're proposing. If one looks at all the past governments that have attempted the type of system you prescribe, one finds the result for the general citizenry is anything put helpful and compassionate. Perhaps it functions for a period of time, but the end result is never one of the success you hold it up to be.
Please do not paint a picture of me that is devoid of compassion for my fellow Americans. The complete opposite is true. But true compassion and love for your fellow man requires you to look at the whole picture of the problem, not just the immediate symptom. Any careful examination of the system in its entirety will reveal that government is not the vehicle by which all health care can be administered. I have provided point after point of reasons why - reasons which you have chosen to ignore in exchange for claiming to be on the side of 'love'.
From what I've read of your posts, you have never been a parent so perhaps this isn't a fair analogy to make, but think about what it takes to raise a child who knows right from wrong, has a good conscience and is a strong sense of responsibility. Do you instill that sense of responsibility by never making the child work for the things it needs? Does the child learn the value of money and hard work if you simply give it all it needs whenever it asks for it without ever asking for anything from the child in return? Are things like chores, bed-times, curfews, and good manners meaningless? No, of course not - these are the things that create a well-rounded young adult who appreciates that the good things in life must be worked for, priorities must be set, and self-reliance must be learned.
I take no 'intellectual solace' in the fact that my wife and I (who currently both pay for our own health insurance out-of-pocket since we work for non-profit companies who do not provide it) have to hold off on having children because we cannot afford the increase in premium caused by maternity coverage and thus have to save more money first. I hate the fact that this is so. But through researching the problem I also have come to the conclusion that the end-game of universal health care is one of far greater hardship for our country. I refuse to let my or anyone else's random anecdotal evidence distract from what the actual problems with our current system are. For every anecdote someone provides to 'prove' their point, you can find one to 'disprove' the same point.
And one last note: please do not confuse government with charity. The United States is the most generous country in the world when it comes to contributions. I am right there with you when you talk about being called to help your fellow man - but government is not in all cases the vehicle with which to do that. Churches, charities, non-profits and other aid organizations are supported by individuals across the country and can provide direct assistance to those in need without any government bureaucratic waste in the middle. What, then, will cause Americans to give more of their money to charity? Having more money in their pockets. What puts more money in their pockets? Lower taxes. I make every effort to give as much as I possibly can to charity and my local church as I, like you, believe I'm called as a Christian to do. But I'm only able to do this if the government leaves me with the liberty to do so in the form of letting me keep the money I earn instead of taxing it away.
I'm sorry this post is necessary as I wish we could discuss the actual issues facing our health system as opposed to discussions of moral equivocations, but your avoidance of many of my discussion items leaves me with nowhere else to go. I can only say that I wish every citizen of the U.S. were as selfless as you since then we would have no need for any of this discussion - everyone would help everyone, and that would be that. But we live in a fallen world and we must do our best to make the most of it through logical and well-planned structures of government, carefully balancing liberty and oppression in the process.
-Brendan
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 28, 2009 5:44:14 GMT -8
I am strongly against any political agenda that punishes people just because they happen to be better off financially. The government already takes 25% from most people, they don't need any more, and they take significantly more from those with higher incomes. It's bad enough as it is. Brendan's absolutely right, you keep taxing people, then donations are going to suffer. Whats the first thing thats going to take a hit? Non profit art groups like symphonys and theater. I was raised to believe you should give 10% to charity, that's in addition to the 25% income tax that goes to the US government, not to mention all the other various taxes & such. Do you want EVERYBODY to be living off of top ramen 3 times a day? Not to mention, if you eliminate all the benefits of making a higher income, what benefit would there for someone to strive to continue to do better? As far as I know, the government already helps out the legitimately poor, if I'm heartless for thinking those who make stupid decisions shouldn't be bailed out, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Oct 28, 2009 10:49:06 GMT -8
A fine reply Brendan. Thanks for the discussion. You are a fine young man and I have a greater appreciation and respect for your intellect.
We have both addressed every point of argument made by the other and found some convergence regarding insurance companies and basic virtues. As to the larger issue it suffices to say we agree to disagree, and that is fine.
What's pending from Arnold, and have you been able to secure a copy of the Young Americans? I have and it is a great score.
All the best.
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on Oct 28, 2009 12:16:43 GMT -8
Craig, I think your posts are the most lyrical I've ever run across anywhere. I don't feel like getting into this debate myself. I don't know enough about the US health system apart from all these articles and reports that make me quite happy to be up here in Canada, where as a grad student, I enjoy full health and dental coverage from the university. Back home in Germany, certainly not all is gold: costs are rising (from the insurance companies' doing, NOT government) and yet you get less and less for your money. Still, no one, I repeat, no one needs to fear for either his life or his savings because of getting sick and consequent treatment. Brendan, what you said about individualism and liberty doesn't quite gel with me. "Each man on his own, me first" is something I consider a dubious "virtue" and one that eventually will come to bite anyone who takes that stance in their rear ends. Also, I'm baffled how such an amazingly positive guy like yourself continues to (seemingly) only see the negative aspects in such things as universal health care. My 0.02...I'm back to bed! CK
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 28, 2009 15:57:03 GMT -8
The problem with Liberals is they seem to want to spend everyone else's money for them.
Once again, what motivation whatsoever is there for one to strive to better oneself if they can get a free ride?
Whatever happened to working hard for what you have?
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Oct 28, 2009 18:26:21 GMT -8
The problem with Liberals is they seem to want to spend everyone else's money for them. Once again, what motivation whatsoever is there for one to strive to better oneself if they can get a free ride? Whatever happened to working hard for what you have? No, it's more a case of it being everyone's responsibility as a member of the human race to ensure that our society thrives, is healthy, well educated, is protected by decent police/fire service, has decent roads, and everything else we need to be a functioning, happy populous. People contribute what they are able to contribute. That's why I'm in favor of a flat tax the way we have in Britain and other countries - a percentage of your income, the same across the board - which helps fund it all. Everyone contributes the same, you don't pay more the more you earn. Saying 'screw you, I worked for this, and everyone who is less fortunate/disabled/a different color/social class/didn't have the same breaks as me can go to hell' is - from my perspective - incredibly selfish.
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Oct 28, 2009 18:43:41 GMT -8
As far as I know, property tax pays for most of those public services? A flat tax on income would be great, but it's never going to happen. "Universal healthcare" is not comparable to any of those services, it is a broken system to begin with because there is no personal responsibility.
The US government has directly or indirectly had programs in place to benefit ALL of those examples you cite, except for the final item, which comes down to luck.
And who said anything about damning people to Hell?
|
|