Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Personally I hope he's okay. But as this is just an anecdote and cant google it, im afraid it might be a bunch of lies. So, hope he's well , but not a good enough argument!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Universal health care would be a good thing
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Personally I hope he's okay. But as this is just an anecdote and cant google it, im afraid it might be a bunch of lies. So, hope he's well , but not a good enough argument!
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
If you think I'm lying about something, challenge me and I'll respond to your request. I can offer you that courtesy. I know I'm impolite but projecting fantasies about what "socialists" are like is downright rude to socialists. Its me you're dealing with, not some imaginary stereotype.
Why don't you just provide evidence of your story or drop it? Its that simple. What you're doing now is trying to create a distraction.
No, you lacked a valid argument, which is why I attacked it. If I didn't go into more depth in by rebuttal its because I didn't see it worth the effort. Do we really have to consider the argument that human innovation is purely driven by monetary profit seriously?
Its true that Michael Moore's film turned me on to what was happening in Cuba. So did the documentary "The Power of Community - How Cuba survived Peak Oil". Since then its been a curiosity of mine and thanks to the Internet I've been able to learn more.
There are things that are great about Cuba's healthcare system and there are things that are awful. The economic & resource problems of Cuba (largely brought on by the U.S. embargo) are mostly responsible for what's awful about it. Given that, what they've achieved is very impressive indeed and has been looked at here in the UK for ideas about how we can improve our own healthcare system.
Its evidently not the case, like you asserted, that socialist/communist healthcare is going to be less innovative simply because its not primarily driven by market forces. I suspect that was a fantasy that you wanted to be true so you decided it was. If you disagree, expand your argument to include actual facts rather than personal opinion and simplistic dismissal of Michael Moore's film "because its trash". Have you even seen it?
There is a difference between making personal claims without any reference to external sources of information (I'm not you so I need something more than your opinion/belief) and making claims linking to external sources of information. Where is your proof that no one dies from lack of coverage? Why are the articles I posted lies?
Seriously troublemane, we might be locking horns right now creating some bad feeling but I can't not worry about everyone in the U.S. given the current economic climate. Its not just because your fate is tied to my own, which it certainly is, but recognition that we're much more alike than we are different despite our opposing views.
Alceste
Vagabond
Rose: "Don't go out there! They've got guns!"
the Doctor: "And I don't, so that makes me the better man."
Rose: "But you'll be killed"
the Doctor: "Then I'll have the moral high ground!"
The reason Cubans (all Cuban ex-pats, not just the doctors) go to the US is to escape communism and live in a country where they can personally profit from their labour, not because the Cuban health care system is a shambles.
Why would a Cuban doctor be content earning the same wage as a garbage collector, when in the US, he can buy a private plane? The life expectancy of Cubans is equal to the life expectancy of Americans, and infant mortality and the probability of early death is less. The idea that the only way to learn anything about Cuban medicine is by watching Sicko is absurd. I've been to Cuba. There's also a segment on medicine in Cuba in this film, which Wampus and I recently saw. And there is also the WHO:
Cuba
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67/70
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 7
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 127/82
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 333
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2004): 7.6
USA
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67/71
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2004): 6,350
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2004): 15.2
Be fair - first you said I was being silly to say the US lets people die because they lack insurance coverage , and Wampus called you silly for believing this doesn't happen (complete with a link to the details of a study that has found 18,000 Americans die every year due to inadequate coverage), and now you're all pissy about my boyfriend's debate tactics?
Hmmm - you're 9 trillion dollars in debt and running a budget deficit in May alone of 2008 that was greater than the whole of 2007? Why worry!
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Why are your links to stories, listing other people's opinions any more valid than my personal experiences? Those links you provided Scarlett (if you have read them) are reports that say 18,000 americans COULD be dying each year due to inadequate insurance coverage. These are opinions, politically movtivated I might add, and so are these, from a differing viewpoint:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...ts/how_liberal_care_would_kill_ted_114032.htm
and yes, it is silly to believe that people are dying in the US for lack of health insurance. nobody dies from that, they may die because they decide not to get something checked when they should, not going to the doctor out of fear what they will find out,but nobody dies from lack of health coverage. i have never heard of someone falling down dead because they did not have health coverage.
Now a few posts back, you may note, I admitted the socialized care in the US could use a major overhaul. I stated an opinion (based on personal experience) that I thought we had the money to do so, why did you attack this? Why attack my opinion concerning capitalism? You have no counter argument, you just say its ridiculous? I personally dont see how you could just skip past all the posts where I was partly agreeing with you to attacking the points where I differed, as if that will persuade me to see your point of view?
well..sorry. I only descended to personal attacks just a few min. ago to give you a taste of your own medicine. I enjoy a personal attack as the next bloke, but if you wanna have a genuine discussion, I would appreciate a certain degree of respect for a different point of view.
My position has been (and will continue to be) that a complete transition to universal healthcare in the US is neither possible nor preferable, considering the current situation. Something (clearly) needs to be done, but so far all I am hearing is a continuous call for how universal healthcare must be adopted--with no advice or thought about how will it be accomplished? A realistic one. Please.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...ts/how_liberal_care_would_kill_ted_114032.htm
and yes, it is silly to believe that people are dying in the US for lack of health insurance. nobody dies from that, they may die because they decide not to get something checked when they should, not going to the doctor out of fear what they will find out,but nobody dies from lack of health coverage. i have never heard of someone falling down dead because they did not have health coverage.
Now a few posts back, you may note, I admitted the socialized care in the US could use a major overhaul. I stated an opinion (based on personal experience) that I thought we had the money to do so, why did you attack this? Why attack my opinion concerning capitalism? You have no counter argument, you just say its ridiculous? I personally dont see how you could just skip past all the posts where I was partly agreeing with you to attacking the points where I differed, as if that will persuade me to see your point of view?
well..sorry. I only descended to personal attacks just a few min. ago to give you a taste of your own medicine. I enjoy a personal attack as the next bloke, but if you wanna have a genuine discussion, I would appreciate a certain degree of respect for a different point of view.
My position has been (and will continue to be) that a complete transition to universal healthcare in the US is neither possible nor preferable, considering the current situation. Something (clearly) needs to be done, but so far all I am hearing is a continuous call for how universal healthcare must be adopted--with no advice or thought about how will it be accomplished? A realistic one. Please.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Yea, but I bet he would have had to wait for more than twenty minutes if he had needed a quadruple bypass surgery ...
Troublemane
Well-Known Member
Also in the US there would have to be a lawsuit against the place of business, the manufacturer of the escalator, and of course damages for pain and suffering. 
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Also in the US there would have to be a lawsuit against the place of business, the manufacturer of the escalator, and of course damages for pain and suffering.
I'll have to make sure that doppleganger knows about the lawsuit ...
Also in the US there would have to be a lawsuit against the place of business, the manufacturer of the escalator, and of course damages for pain and suffering.
Legal responsibility/accountability is a good thing. Though it has gotten out of hand, but the fault seems to fall on jury rewards and an inherent desire to help the underdog. We need wiser juries.
Most of the folks posting that support national health care would also support out right socialism as well. Am I correct? I want to debate health care with someone who understands the need for a capitalist system.
I resent all this attitude that we just somehow don't "get it". As if we are too dumb to understand what they are saying. I don't believe doctors are suddenly going to sell their airplanes and move out of their big houses any more than they are going to be willing to work longer shifts for less money.
Lets use some common sense people. If more people are seeking the same amount of services that are at capacity now, everyone is going to wait longer for these services.
Doctors will treat the NHP just like they do medicare. "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients at this time". Most seniors need a supplemental policy to be seen by them.
I resent all this attitude that we just somehow don't "get it". As if we are too dumb to understand what they are saying. I don't believe doctors are suddenly going to sell their airplanes and move out of their big houses any more than they are going to be willing to work longer shifts for less money.
Lets use some common sense people. If more people are seeking the same amount of services that are at capacity now, everyone is going to wait longer for these services.
Doctors will treat the NHP just like they do medicare. "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients at this time". Most seniors need a supplemental policy to be seen by them.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Actually, there are many Canadian critics of our health care system. The vast majority of them are employed by free market think tanks, lobby groups and PR firms acting on behalf of corporate interests (ie insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, and others who would financially benefit from the collapse of universal health care). It's important to recognize that their motives are economic and not humanitarian. These are the ones who publish op-ed pieces about wait times. They also have enormous political influence, in that through the skillful manipulation of news coverage, in tandem with large funding cuts by governments more interested in economic statistics than humanitarian concerns, they have created a "crisis" mentality in the public mind. Many Canadians now believe our health care system needs restructuring, that the government is incapable of managing the demand efficiently and that the private sector (rather than adequate public funding) is the obvious choice for who can do this rescuing.
The same is happening in the UK. It's a simple strategy for any elite that wants to enable private individuals to profit from illness, grieving and fear of death: cut health care funding drastically while simultaneously generating news items about a health care crisis, and then when individuals start to experience the direct result of the funding cuts in the form of long wait times or hurried doctors' visits, the anecdotal "evidence" starts to trickle out, and is immediately seized upon as further evidence of the "crisis". And so on and so on. Note the complete absence of research or analysis in this method. It's pure propaganda. But propaganda is effective.
I do have criticisms of the Canadian system - I believe adequate funding should be restored and the assertions of privatization propagandists publicly challenged whenever and wherever they appear. I also think greater investment in educating people about their health, greater acceptance and advocacy of proven alternative medicine, and the publication of guidance on first aid and home remedies would be helpful and reduce the strain on the system. We are also ridiculously drug-dependent, like Americans, and this not only an expensive flaw, but one that contributes to the contamination of waterways and the emergence of super-bugs that are immune to antibiotics. For example, there's not much amoxycillin can do for you that garlic can't, (except maybe give you a full body rash, as has happened to myself and everyone I know who has ever taken it.) Also, our management of mental health problems is appalling.
Anyway, I have my criticisms - everybody does - but they're related to Canadians' health care mentality - we think of our bodies as if they were automobiles that need the occasional tune-up, and fail to educate ourselves about the therapies our doctors recommend. (After all, they're the experts. What do we know about our own bodies?) Nevertheless, I have absolutely no criticism of universal health care. It has always been there when needed, for me and everyone I know whether rich or poor. As it should be.
Alceste
Vagabond
No. Everybody outside the US supports universal health care, regardless of their political leanings, except those who stand to personally profit from the absence of it.
Is it possible that maybe you somehow just don't?
Thank goodness for "organic" movements.
Alceste
Vagabond
I have a sneaking suspicion we will all be moving that way real soon. Non-organic farmers are really struggling with the oil prices. Bad news for them, but good news for anyone with a trowel and a patch of yard.
I understand that people believe a NHP would be better than it actually would be.
Alceste
Vagabond
Well it's true you would not be able to reach the level of cost-effectiveness and efficiency as other industrialized nations overnight because of the high fees of service providers and the pharmaceutical mentality. The extra premiums for private care would disappear overnight though, particularly for the middle classes, who would no longer have to fear bankruptcy due to the fiscal concerns of their insurance providers.
Anyway, if the US devoted half the resources to domestic health as it does to foreign wars, you would probably surpass the rest of us in a decade.
Now you have peaked my interest. Most insurance covers a percentage of the medical bill. Are you saying that people would not have to pony up ANY money of there own?
In America even if your policy covered 90% of your medical bill, the remaining 10% could bankrupt some of us.
Alceste
Vagabond
Yes, that's how it is in Canada. You pony up nothing, except through tax, which is not affected by your state of health. Everybody pays - within their tax bracket - the same as everyone else in that bracket, whether sick or well, and nobody ever pays a deductible of any kind, although some provinces I think have introduced small user fees for GP visits to discourage excess. In Canada, you have to pay for your own drugs, eye checks, and dentistry unless you are very, very poor. But otherwise, you just go on about the business of trying to get well, with no economic impact apart from whatever might result from loss of income or prescription drugs.
Scarlett Wampus
psychonaut
Troublemane, they're more significant than just opinion! That's why.
The first link I posted was to an article, written by a reporter for a lightweight but major Newspaper. It covered the findings of a study by the Institute of Medicine, a high-standing non-profit, non-governmental organisation that is part of the United States Academy of Sciences. It was based on factual information from a study which is why it is more significant than mere opinion.
The second link I was posted was to an article, written by a Families USA spokesperson. It covered the findings of a study by Families USA, a high-standing non-profit consumer healthcare advocacy organisation. It was based on factual information from a study which is why it is more significant than mere opinion.
The third link I posted was an opinion piece, written by a reporter dealing with consumer advice on health insurance. It was reacting to the studies by the Institute of Medicine, Families USA and the Urban Institute, a mostly federal funded thinktank that performs a whole bunch of different functions. It drew upon factual information from several studies which is why it is more significant than mere opinion.
What you posted was an opinion piece, written by the vice president of a group funded by pharmaceutical companies and has links to the PR firm Manning, Selvage & Lee. It didn't refer to factual studies at all but cherry picked anecdotal evidence in a clearly politically motivated rant. Because it was entirely selective in its anecdotal evidence, which did not draw upon factual information from studies, it is no more significant than mere opinion.
Here is a small collection of BBC skillswise factsheets about how to tell the difference between opinion and fact: BBC - Skillswise Words - Fact and Opinion factsheet
[qupte]and yes, it is silly to believe that people are dying in the US for lack of health insurance. nobody dies from that, they may die because they decide not to get something checked when they should, not going to the doctor out of fear what they will find out,but nobody dies from lack of health coverage. i have never heard of someone falling down dead because they did not have health coverage.[/quote]
This is your opinion. You didn't actually take in what those articles were saying, did you? I'm not going to copy them out or continue to argue a point if you're not listening.
Well you can call it attack. I think the actual quote was expressing hope that you do have enough money and saying that I was worried about the state of your economy. I attacked your political statement because it was political rhetoric, in other words opinion, and also asserted something that was evidently false, that socialist/communist are somehow inherently less innovative. I called the notion that human innovation is solely based on monetary profit ridiculous. These are separate points. Please separate them.
Incidentally, where have you partially agreed with any of my responses?
And why are you misinterpreting what I'm saying? Is this trying to persuade me I should be less sure of what it is I'm saying?
But its not just a different point of view, Troublemane. This is a debate forum and factual evidence carries more weight than opinion, in a debate. I respect you as a person but that doesn't mean I think everything you think and say is worthy of much consideration just because you think it should be.
Hmm. How it should be accomplished isn't our concern. How should we know? Its our government's job to respond to our needs as we democratically elect them to do.
That part is a better deal. Nothing like receiving a shoe box full of bills and not being able to go to work to pay them. Oh yeah, your employer is not obligated to pay for your insurance while you are not working and you may recieve a bill for insurance as well while you are not earning. Failure to pay this bill will result in a cancellation and upon returning to work, you will find that you now have a pre-existing condition.