Health Care Reform - A Modest Proposal
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: Although I've known some dogs and horses I'd put in line in front of Stan. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
OK, so perhaps I didn't phrase that well. So allow me to try again. If we are predicating our arguments upon the notion of health care as a human right, than you simply cannot disallow any one from recieving it, regardless of age or any other consideration. The only thing you can do is to decide that some of us are not quite as human as the rest of us and therefore can be allowed to die. If you do not predicate it on a human right, than the entire rational for government empowering itself to be involved at all collapses completely unless you compltely disregard the constitution altogether.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches.
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
Christian Graus wrote:
unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Perhaps just euthenise all retiree without health insurance and force all prisoners on a life tariff or death row to become immediate enforced organ donors.
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
I don't follow - why are people on death row all 75 ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches.
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
Christian Graus wrote:
unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
I would be interested to know what the cost of health care was back then, relative to income, as compared to today. The cost of a basic doctors visit in the USA is beyond obscene, I can only imagine what surgery costs.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Who said I wanted to exclude the elderly ? I can't think of anyone who is excluded here, in Australia.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Oakman wrote:
Won't work. Nobody wants a 75 year old replacement.
I don't follow - why are people on death row all 75 ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Oakman wrote:
Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ?
Nope. If a family wants to keep a body breathing after it has been pronounced brain-dead then they are welcome to do it, but not at tax-payer expense - and subject to the new luxury tax, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ?
Nope. If a family wants to keep a body breathing after it has been pronounced brain-dead then they are welcome to do it, but not at tax-payer expense - and subject to the new luxury tax, of course.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Sure. I don't disagree. You're saying the poor don't get health care now, but the rich but brain dead, do ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
that is exactly what I mean. the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a fucking right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no fucking business of the government.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
OK, so perhaps I didn't phrase that well. So allow me to try again. If we are predicating our arguments upon the notion of health care as a human right, than you simply cannot disallow any one from recieving it, regardless of age or any other consideration. The only thing you can do is to decide that some of us are not quite as human as the rest of us and therefore can be allowed to die. If you do not predicate it on a human right, than the entire rational for government empowering itself to be involved at all collapses completely unless you compltely disregard the constitution altogether.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
that is exactly what I mean. the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a fucking right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no fucking business of the government.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a f***ing right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no f***ing business of the government.
Do you have an insurance policy ? Health care works the same, it's shared risk. The difference is, we let our government organise it, and you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak, while robbing the strong. You explain to me why the cost of care is so much more in the US compared to here ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the adavnces in treatment have extended lives but access to that care is not a f***ing right, the road we're heading down is simply government enforced charity and is no f***ing business of the government.
Do you have an insurance policy ? Health care works the same, it's shared risk. The difference is, we let our government organise it, and you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak, while robbing the strong. You explain to me why the cost of care is so much more in the US compared to here ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
You explain to me
how many innovations your drug companies have developed. how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed. something other than the military that is done better because our government controls it.
Christian Graus wrote:
you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak
bullshit. but back to my point, it is no fucking business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You explain to me
how many innovations your drug companies have developed. how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed. something other than the military that is done better because our government controls it.
Christian Graus wrote:
you let private companies use it as a means of preying on the weak
bullshit. but back to my point, it is no fucking business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your drug companies have developed
Don't get me started on the BS that is the drug industry in the US
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed.
See, you're american, so I don't blame you that there's little to no chance of you seeing any reportage on medical breakthroughs outside the US. However, Australian teams produce their fair share of medical innovation. http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html[^]
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but back to my point, it is no f***ing business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
And that is still only true in a society that preys on the weak, and feasts on their bones. I go back to my core point - the cost of modern medicine, especially in the USA, is far too high for most people to afford. If you have any sort of insurance, then you are buying into the concept of shared risk. The health of the members of a society, affects that society, and so it is not just out of compassion that it makes sense for society to engage in shared risk to make health care within the reach of it's members.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
Rob Graham wrote:
I never suggested it was a "human right". We limit many rights, however, and in this case we are only talking about limiting taxpayer funding of medical care to that which is reasonable and economic. No one suggests disallowing those who want to from paying for additional care on their own. You don't get unlimited retirement support from Social Security either, but are allowed to save whatever you want to supplement that. Your argument, as usual, is pure B.S. And nothing in the Constitution prohibits us from choosing to fund medical care through taxes, in fact, since we already fund it for some (medicaid and medicare) one could argue that the Constitution mandates that we extend it to all (equal protection clause of the 14th amendment - if it's good for schools, then it's also good for this).
Well, if you believe that, all I can say is live and learn. You will find out the hard way what the pure B.S. was all along. What we are attempting to do simply cannot be done. Just as with Social Security, the system will degrade over time and more and more people will find themselves on the wrong side of some bureaucrats slide rule. And, as far as the constitution is concerned, if it can be used to justify providing health care for all, than it is so far from the original purpose it was created to achieve that for all intents and purposes it is entirely unnecessary. If the federal government can do this, there are essentially no limits on its power at all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your drug companies have developed
Don't get me started on the BS that is the drug industry in the US
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how many innovations your durable medical equipment companies have developed.
See, you're american, so I don't blame you that there's little to no chance of you seeing any reportage on medical breakthroughs outside the US. However, Australian teams produce their fair share of medical innovation. http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/Inventions/InventionsA.html[^]
Mike Gaskey wrote:
but back to my point, it is no f***ing business of the government, healthcare is not a "right" any more than is food, clothing, shelter - all are personal responsibilities.
And that is still only true in a society that preys on the weak, and feasts on their bones. I go back to my core point - the cost of modern medicine, especially in the USA, is far too high for most people to afford. If you have any sort of insurance, then you are buying into the concept of shared risk. The health of the members of a society, affects that society, and so it is not just out of compassion that it makes sense for society to engage in shared risk to make health care within the reach of it's members.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
And that is still only true in a society that preys on the weak, and feasts on their bones.
Why didn't that happen to my family? We were weak, vulnerable and nobody feasted on our bones. We recieved help from the community.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And that is still only true in a society that preys on the weak, and feasts on their bones.
Why didn't that happen to my family? We were weak, vulnerable and nobody feasted on our bones. We recieved help from the community.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Because you're talking 50 years ago. The concept of community that existed then, doesn't exist to the same degree today. It *can* do, of course, but by and large, it does not appear to. Either way, you can't take a single personal example, because Americans are, by and large, amongst the most generous people I have ever met. And I've met a lot of them, all over the country ( I am talking in person here, discounting the web ). That doesn't change that a societal structure that does not offer access to health care, is one that locks people out, and lets them die. And, going back to the point I made earlier, the cost of medicine back then was far less than it is today. It's the escalating cost that makes it more imperative that some sort of safety net is offered.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Because you're talking 50 years ago. The concept of community that existed then, doesn't exist to the same degree today. It *can* do, of course, but by and large, it does not appear to. Either way, you can't take a single personal example, because Americans are, by and large, amongst the most generous people I have ever met. And I've met a lot of them, all over the country ( I am talking in person here, discounting the web ). That doesn't change that a societal structure that does not offer access to health care, is one that locks people out, and lets them die. And, going back to the point I made earlier, the cost of medicine back then was far less than it is today. It's the escalating cost that makes it more imperative that some sort of safety net is offered.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because you're talking 50 years ago.
It still refutes your central point that there is or was anything inherently uncivil in American society.
Christian Graus wrote:
The concept of community that existed then, doesn't exist to the same degree today. It *can* do, of course, but by and large, it does not appear to. Either way, you can't take a single personal example, because Americans are, by and large, amongst the most generous people I have ever met. And I've met a lot of them, all over the country ( I am talking in person here, discounting the web ).
Only becuase it has been intentionally attacked and made dysfunctional for the express purpose of making people more dependent upon government. That was the entire point of the last 50 year assault on the christian community in the US - demonizing it and marginalzing it by continuously publicizing every negative and ignoring every positive.
Christian Graus wrote:
That doesn't change that a societal structure that does not offer access to health care, is one that locks people out, and lets them die.
Some one is going to be allowed to die under any system. If you tell me that isn't true under the Australian system, that I'm afraid I will have to ask an obvious question: Does no one die in Australia? If they do, who is it that is keeping statistics on how much effort was expended on their behalf to keep them alive?
Christian Graus wrote:
And, going back to the point I made earlier, the cost of medicine back then was far less than it is today. It's the escalating cost that makes it more imperative that some sort of safety net is offered.
But you don't seem to be in the least bit curious about why that might be. You seem to believe that there is some completely incomprehensible reason why medical care would out pace every other sector of the economy. The answer is all the very money that government is pumping into the system, and the fact that we are supporting not only government bureaucracies but two entirely independent industries with our health care dollars. You simply cannot compare the system as it existed before government involvment became so pervasive, and the systeem afterwards and not see the negative effect that it has had.
Chain
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was working fine the last time it was tried - 1950s, and probably well into the '60s.
I would be interested to know what the cost of health care was back then, relative to income, as compared to today. The cost of a basic doctors visit in the USA is beyond obscene, I can only imagine what surgery costs.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why is excluding the poor any different than excluding the elderly? Regardless of what system you devise, someone gets excluded.
Who said I wanted to exclude the elderly ? I can't think of anyone who is excluded here, in Australia.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
The cost of a basic doctors visit in the USA is beyond obscene, I can only imagine what surgery costs.
My last visit to the hospital, last fall, included a minimally invasive procedure and ran right around $1700 an hour.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!