Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:



Good heavens!  Having access to healthcare is a sacrifice of my liberty? Being able to order O2 to alleviate a condition that restricts my life is a sacrifice of my liberty?

...or on the other side of the coin, having no way of paying for medication whilst others can IS liberty?

If you are so hung up about liberty and the erosion of it, Brew, please re-read the list of said erosions in the first post of this thread. That's really where your liberty's going.

My view is this: Governments are owned by the population in general; from the richest to the poorest, the youngest to the oldest. We are all stakeholders. Private enterprise is owned by far fewer people and therefore controlled by the  interests of those fewer people. Great if you're one of them, not so great if you ain't. It surely makes sense therefore, that a democracy of Free Americans must make their government responsible for its their wellbeing. The alternative is to allow private enterprise (the wealthy few) to make decisions outside of your control. Not much liberty there!

Quote:


Thanks for posting that Kev. It's great being so free.

Charlie

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:29pm:

Huh? This first decade of what? The 21st Century, or the first decade of this country's existence.

Virtually all Americans want lower cost, high quality health care with choices.

That isn't being debated.

A well thought out plan that would actually reduce overall total costs would be overwhelmingly accepted.

Spreading the same total cost over more people via higher taxes is not the same as actually reducing overall cost.

I have seen nothing in the current set of proposals that would actually reduce overall health care costs.

I have yet to see a Government program of any kind, run efficiently. They are ALL going broke at an alarming rate.

The GAO agrees with me.

Brew wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 3:46pm:


Quote:

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:12pm:

Still totally not understanding, Kevin.

If I were to refer to this year, or this century, would it be totally perplexing?

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:

Ah! so you are saying that your democracy is not a liberty?  That your government is imposed and not yours as a citizen to guide and drive?  That you would eschew your inviolable democratic right, as enshrined in your constitution, in favour of the whims of a private enterprise scheme?

If you can't trust your government, vote in a new one and keep doing so until your politicians learn to toe the line. That is freedom, that is liberty. Allowing private enterprise to run roughshod over your democracy is not freedom.

And please, when I say "Free healthcare" I do not mean that no one pays. What I mean is that it is accessible to all so that those who need it get it. Its only fair and logical that everyone contributes a little of their income to make something that would be a national asset, something for Americans to be proud of where each and every person is a stakeholder. I'm not talking of taking away choice, or depriving the entrepreneurial etc. but not everyone can be a Vice President of a big company, able to afford private health care. America like every other country has lots and lots of medium and low-paid workers.  I bet most would love to access the health care they need rather than the health care they can afford.

Again, I reiterate, my interest in this subject is driven out of empathy for fellow CH sufferers. I love a good debate too and am interested in understanding the totality of the whole Healthcare issue. 

Loopy wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:



Clear enough, which.

Loopy wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:41pm:


Ok, give me 20 mins to think of a post..!


Lefty..!

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:09pm:


Brian,
Hate to rain on your parade, but your reasoning is faulty (italicized and in blue).  That's a pretty damned big brush your using to paint those who can't afford healt coverage (and I am in NO way supporting a govt. controlled health plan).  What about those people who work hard, pay their bills, buy a few groceries and don't have extra money for insurance?  There are actually more people who fall between the cracks than those you mention.

No health care for the poor?  Balderdash.  My best friend developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma.  She had no insurance of any kind.  She did not pay one penny for any of her hospital stays, treatments or medication, nor was her family responsible for any debts incurred before her death (she went through experimental treatment as a last resort).  We looked at what her treatment cost and it was well over half a million dollars.

I think Marc pretty much hit the proerbial nail on the head.

"Virtually all Americans want lower cost, high quality health care with choices.

That isn't being debated.

A well thought out plan that would actually reduce overall total costs would be overwhelmingly accepted.

Spreading the same total cost over more people via higher taxes is not the same as actually reducing overall cost.

I have seen nothing in the current set of proposals that would actually reduce overall health care costs.

I have yet to see a Government program of any kind, run efficiently. They are ALL going broke at an alarming rate.

The GAO agrees with me."

The broken toys need to be fixed before the government tells me that I have to buy new ones.

One thing I will say with regards to tort/liability, the US is a sue happy population, where it's relatively rare in the UK.  Also, primary care is BIG in the UK, where it's not so big here (there is a tremendous shortage of PCP in the US).

And for those of you who seem to think that there are no socialized health programs that are paid for by me, et al, think again, Medicaid, Medicare, state run children's programs (We have LaChip for the in between earners), public health units, university hospitals that provide free health care and I'm sure there are more that I'm just not thinking of right now.

Callico wrote on Sep 17^th, 2009 at 4:56pm:


I see. So some factory worker who suffers from cluster headaches and cannot afford top level medical treatment like his boss can expecting someone else to pay for his EXCESSES? His unwillingness to take care of himself?

At least I know how my cluster headaches started now! Excess and self neglect, apparently. Thank you Callico!

What needs to be realised and accepted and supported by society is that we NEED the low wage earners.  It is their work and lower wages that keep our prices down. We DEMAND lower prices yet the very 'machine' that contributes to those lower prices (and indeed contribute to the economy all the way up to the wallets of the corporate heavyweights), the lower paid workers must receive second rate "maintenance". We all benefit from their efforts yet don't want to do anything to ensure their health and happiness?  That is sad. That is unjust. And that is blinkered, short-term thinking that will benefit no one in the long term.

Sick people deserve access to the treatment they need, not the treatment they can afford. You can't get better and be productive again if you cannot afford proper healthcare. Instead, you become a permanently ill, unemployed, unproductive burden on on society, looked down upon and cursed by the very people who created you.

Hey Buzz, explain to me WHY the healthcare insurance HAS to be Goverment run??  Especially when there are other options?