Politics Universal Health Care

[Azhria Lilu]

Because that is almost pure socialism.  America didn't get where it is today through the redistribution of wealth.
And who may I ask will flip the bill for this health care? (which is not a right)

Medical care is a right.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948

Article 25.
1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

And why shouldn't it be a right?

 

[AliasHombre]

Medical care is a right.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948
And why shouldn't it be a right?

[post="977403"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

The U.N. is not, never has been, and never will be the governing body of the United States.

 

[AliasHombre]

How can you say that not everyone should deserve health care? That is very wrong in my opinion.

[post="977318"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I never said that. I merely stated a truth, and you twisted my words.

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

I never said that.  I merely stated a truth, and you twisted my words.

[post="977437"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Eh he didn't twist your words just...sorta thought you were heading in that direction ....anywho health care should be a right but not a right that's enforced by making certain people pay more it just isnt "fair" but even if we were able to do it we wouldnt be able to quite yet considering we are already deep in debt

 

[Azhria Lilu]

The U.N. is not, never has been, and never will be the governing body of the United States.

[post="977424"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

The United States is a willing member of the UN, and thus should abide by its standards. The UN doesn't define what an American-citizen right is, it defines what a human right is, and one of those rights is health care.

I'm not saying the US has to abide by this, it doesn't, the UDHR isn't binding, rather the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) derivitave of it is because the United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992. The ICCPR, though, doesn't mention health care.

See, I'm telling you the truth here ---- the US has no obligation to give people health care. What I'm saying is that we should anyways. We're not a country that was built on standing on the bare-bones required human rights -- we should go above and beyond what is required.

I never said that.  I merely stated a truth, and you twisted my words.

[post="977437"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

So, what do you think then? Should the US give all citizens health care?

 

[AliasHombre]

So, what do you think then? Should the US give all citizens health care?

[post="977459"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Actually, now that I read some mre about the nuts and bolts of it, no, I don't.
I mean, in a perfect world, sure...but in a society with limited resources and a huge population, it wont work any better.
Health care problems

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

Woohoo! It has it's own topic....good job Charlie! But how can people let other people pay more money? Also by having the gov. pay for health care wouldnt they make us go to certain doctors? and also what would happen to all those insurance companies?

 

[AliasHombre]

Everytime John Edwards won a settlement from a doctor, health care costs would creep up a little bit. Funny how that works.

 

[Sophie]

I feel so lucky to live in France where everyone has access to heath care. Why should it be different ? Thinking some people don't deserve having it because they's different or whatever is like being a racist. -_-

There is really a lack of tolerance in this world.

 

[Azhria Lilu]

I'm responding to parts of the article now

If medical care were paid for by anonymous “taxpayers” as an entitlement there would be little reason to demand anything but the most advanced and expensive treatment, if it had even the slimmest chance of working.

Today, many people's medical care is paid by anonymous HMOs --- and not all requests would have to be satisfied, only ones which meet a certain cost-benefit ratio as determined with those running the system.

Human suffering is a terrible reality and one which we would all prefer either to avoid altogether (i.e. to die peacefully in our sleep at a ripe old age in good shape) or to pay to minimize it. Given infinite demand and limited supply, there are only a few options. We can temporarily go on a mad health care spending spree and ultimately bankrupt the country. 80% of the GDP would go to prolong the last few weeks of citizens’ lives. After this spree, we would all be poor and there would be no economy left to support health care. This first option seems a bit short-sighted.

This is just crazy. This has not happened in countries with Universal Health Care.

There are other options. We can either ration health care or deliver universal second-rate health care. These are, in fact, the only viable options.  With limited dollars and a universal “entitlement,” somebody -- politicians in the case of government -- will have to decide who gets how much health care and the quality of the care.  Should Parkinson’s patients get more access to the system than Alzheimer’s patients? What about cardiac patients? How much for heart failure, valve problems or heart attacks? How much money is set aside for various types of cancer patients?

They are touch choices, but making no choice and just letting all of them die

Should money be allocated by the severity of sickness or the chance of cure?

In a cost-benefit ratio - how to get the most for the money, so probably chance of cure.

Should society determine the economic value of different patients -- for example a breadwinner for six would get more money than a single person? If we establish a standard for age should we favor the young (who have many more years of life) or the old (who need care chronically)?

All should be treated equally in the system.

Should social outcasts, “unproductive” artists, non-taxpayers or those with a criminal record be at the bottom of the priority list for health care?

No. Again, the system should treat all equally.

To this writer the whole system sounds ghoulish and ripe with opportunity for favored access to the politically connected.

It's no better today where the rich get the best care.

I have another concern about government-controlled health care.  All these folks talk about the so-called civil liberties violations of the Patriot Act. Can you imagine Big Brother having all your medical records? How long do you think it would take before the healthcare system became a big “background check” for the government.

I'd trust my data in the hands of the government more than in the hands of a por-profit company.

What if people choose not to follow the directions of their appointed doctors?

The system should be voluntary.

If an overweight person has been warned three times to go to a diet clinic or lose a certain number of pounds and does not, are we responsible to pay for his or her diabetes treatment?

No - if you opt out of the health care system by refusing required aid, you forfeit your right to the system.

Are smokers covered under the system?

Yes, if they want to be.

It would seem to me that a tax-funded program justifies the intrusion of the taxpayers through the government into the habits of all Americans.  The real ugly truth is that the very wealthiest Americans will opt out of this monstrous system and the country will have two distinct classes of healthcare.

That's probably sadly true. However, it is better than what we have now, where some people get no health care at all.

leap into the darkness of socialized medicine

It's not dark over there --- many other countries (Canada, the UK, France...) have Universal Health Care.

There is a tremendous amount of research and literature that shows the value of a market-driven healthcare system. It’s less expensive

That's not true. It's realistic for everyone. Those that can pay a lot do pay more, but those that couldn't afford it before now get access that they couldn't get before because it was too expensive.

more humane

:lol: So, allowing the rich to get great health care while the poor get none is humane?

 

[Azhria Lilu]

Woohoo! It has it's own topic....good job Charlie! But how can people let other people pay more money? Also by having the gov. pay for health care wouldnt they make us go to certain doctors? and also what would happen to all those insurance companies?

[post="977473"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

When I was in London in June, they were talking about how you could now choose your doctors --- this is how it should work

The insurance companies/clinics/hospitals would all be “taken back” and become owned by the people (the society as a whole, as represented by the government) and run by a new national health system.

 

[AliasHombre]

Wow, you really trust the government. Oh well, I don't.

I dont trust the government to not screw this up somehow.

 

[Azhria Lilu]

Wow, you really trust the government.  Oh well, I don't.

I dont trust the government to not screw this up somehow.

[post="977489"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I trust the government more than a for-profit company

For one thing, the government is accountable to us, not to stockholders.

Also, this has worked in other countries.

 

[Sophie]

I trust the government more than a for-profit company

For one thing, the government is accountable to us, not to stockholders.

[post="977497"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Good first reason, but isn't the US government leads by men who also think about profit (for themselves) ?!

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

Ok still need part of my question answered :lol: ....what happens to insurance companies if they are no longer needed? I mean they are for certain things but what happens to them if there mainly making money off of health care? Also we are in debt and every day digging ourselves in a deeper hole...so thus I doubt 1% of our population that is rich (i think ) probably could not afford to pay for the rest of the 99% so then what? Make the average working man pay more?

 

[Sophie]

^ I guess those companies aren't poor they could definitely go through this.
The solution : make the rich pay more, and I think they're more than 1% :blink:

 

[VaughnsAHottie]

^ Well the company may be rich but the hundreds of workers per each factory dont get to have part in that money...they'd get their final pay check and be sent off...
Also what is the population of the rich in the US? I mean I still dont think that were rich enough to pay for EVERYONE?

 

[Azhria Lilu]

^ Well the company may be rich but the hundreds of workers per each factory dont get to have part in that money...they'd get their final pay check and be sent off...

[post="977511"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

The workers of old clinics/hospitals/insurance companies would probably employed by the national health system.

Remember, this is not improbable. It has worked in other countries.

 

[Sophie]

^ Well the company may be rich but the hundreds of workers per each factory dont get to have part in that money...they'd get their final pay check and be sent off...
Also what is the population of the rich in the US? I mean I still dont think that were rich enough to pay for EVERYONE?

[post="977511"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Yeah I thought about that. -_- But it works in other countries, so I'm sure it could be ok.
Not for everyone of course, but again it works in other countries.
What if the Military Budget is less important ? That would make a lot of money for many other things

 

[Azhria Lilu]

Yeah I thought about that. -_-  But it works in other countries, so I'm sure it could be ok.
Not for everyone of course, but again it works in other countries.
What if the Military Budget is less important ? That would make a lot of money for many other things

[post="977518"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Yeah, the US spends $399 billion dollars on our miltary each year --- that's more than 6 times any other country.

See list: Center for Defense Information