I'm tired of hearing Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, and other Big Government politicians claim that health care is a fundamental right in this country.

You do not have a right to be born without a defect, a disease, or some other ailment, as Michael Badnarik said so eloquently the other night on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Just because you are sick, that doesn't make you automatically eligible to just walk in to a hospital and demand health care.

So despite what your UN Declaration of Human Rights says, you do NOT have a birthright to health care.

Now, with that said, did anyone's congressman vote their conscience and vote their principles and vote against the $400 billion prescription drug benefit?

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/25republicans.htm

Notice those are only Republicans, but I'm sure there were a sprinkle of conservative Democrats to have voted against it.

Mine voted for it (Joe Barton, R-Ennis, 6th Congressional District, Texas) unfortunately.

quote:

Any government willing to create some form of public health care is probably left wing, and thus much less likely to strip social services in favor of the military.

Not necessarily. Take the United States government. While not completely entwined in health care, the government is involved in Medicare, which is supposed to help pay for private health care. But at the same time, a huge amount of the budget goes to the military. Of course, that's not the best example, especially since Medicare and systems like it were created under more left-wing governments and simply continued under right-wing administrations.

quote:

The government should be afraid of it's people

Agreed. You probably disagree, but it's my opinion that the smaller a government is and the less involved it is in the lives of its people, the better. That way, it can be afraid of the citizens. A larger government has the ability to impose on the citizens.

Of course (and this is a completely different discussion), the main differences in how Americans and Europeans view their respective governments arises from the very way the governments are set up. In most European states, the entire government changes during an election. The prime minister is the leader of the party that holds a majority in parliament, so the two are nearly always in agreement. In the United States, the president need not be of the majority party in Congress, and he has powers that cannot be controlled by Congress (in a parliamentary system, there can always be a vote of no confidence in the PM and the PM can dissolve parliament).

Because of this, Americans have less control over the government. Even if a Democrat is voted president, Congress could still be largely Republican, or vice versa. But as I said, that's an entirely different discussion. It may help to explain why we see the government differently, though.

quote:

In other words, I don't want my medical service getting worse because a newly elected government (which controls funding for services) decides to divert money from health care to fund fruitless wars.

That shouldn't be a problem. Any government willing to create some form of public health care is probably left wing, and thus much less likely to strip social services in favor of the military. This isn't set in stone, but history does support this thesis.

quote:

I sleep better at night not worrying about things I can't change.

So would I, but I feel better as a human being caring about these things. If everyone takes on the same stance nothing will ever change, not only in health care, but in education, global warming, poverty, and all the other frequent debate topics we see on here. As long as I'm abroad and can't actively participate directly in political platforms to promote these things I try to bitch as much as possible so the people who can at least give it some thought.

The major difference between Europe and the US is our mentality and our view of government. In the US the government is viewed with skepticism, and is largely distrusted by the population. Here it's the opposite. We give our tax money to he government, so in exchange we expect the government to give back to us, through public health care, housing, education, etc...
If the government doesn't give us what we deserve we vote for someone else in the next election. The government should be afraid of it's people, that's the only way it's ever going to try to make the people happy. Not that it's their responsibility to make us happy, but since we do pay their oversized salaries, and give them power, we feel it's their duty to us to make things as easy as possible. I don't have to worry about insurance because I don't need it, so it's one less thing I have to pay for, thus my income can be spent on other things that are much more gratifying.

quote:

Can I vote for you?

When I sell my soul, you can indeed vote for me. Alas, I'm not cut out for politics. I'm not bloodthirsty and conniving enough.

quote:

No, you choose to ignore a problem you're aware of, that's called apathy.

Whatever. I sleep better at night not worrying about things I can't change.

quote:

And do you view that as bad?

In a word: yes. Government control of things is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can easily turn bad. I don't like services being dependent on the government. In other words, I don't want my medical service getting worse because a newly elected government (which controls funding for services) decides to divert money from health care to fund fruitless wars.

Small government means keeping out of everything but military and infrastructure. Well, that's my definition of small government. Others might hold different opinions.

quote:

They're socialist states. The government has a hand in the market.

That is so ridiculous I'm not even going to be sarcastic.
All states in the European Union promote private enterprise as their preferred vehicle for economic growth. The only true influence the government has over the market is through interest rates. Exactly the same as in the US. The only difference I can think of is that European governments try to promote plurality in the market because a fierce competition maximizes spending by both companies and consumers, thus making the market grow.

quote:

No, they're a politician.

Can I vote for you?

quote:

It involves money; it's a business. I call it as I see it.

No, you choose to ignore a problem you're aware of, that's called apathy.

quote:

The government may not micromanage the hospitals, but by providing any sort of managing guidelines, it's loosely running it.

And do you view that as bad?

quote:

Perfection is impossible..not even Microsoft can make a program that doesn't crash every 30 min. i.e. Vista--I want a refund..and what is even worse they make the consumer purchase a service pack for a product they designed and screwed up. Sorry that was a side note.

You don't have to pay for service packs. Well, unless you're talking about paying through them by using up your Internet bandwidth or through the electricity needed to power your computer while downloading. But you don't need to actually shell out cash just to download the service packs.

quote:

Does that mean the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan are not capitalist states?

They're socialist states. The government has a hand in the market. A true capitalist state means the market is completely free of government interference. Come to think of it, I don't think the American market is completely free, but it's more free than most European or Commonwealth states.

quote:

So essentially anyone who has enough knowledge to be aware of the flaws of the current system is an apathetic fool who isn't willing to do anything to change it and correct the flaws so everyone may benefit?

No, they're a politician.

quote:

That's the root of the problem. People's life, health, and wellbeing should not under any circumstances be a bussiness.

It involves money; it's a business. I call it as I see it.

quote:

Government run would mean the government is directly involved in management tasks. The hospitals here are government funded, but are managed independently. The government sets yearly health care budgets based on the needs of the sector, and establishes general guidelines to follow, but other than that their involvement doesn't go beyond general policy.

They provide funding and guidelines, so it can be inferred that they run it in some small fashion. Think of it like a corporation. The CEO hands off management to lesser employees, but he still runs the company because he has a hand in the budget and where he wants the company to go. The government may not micromanage the hospitals, but by providing any sort of managing guidelines, it's loosely running it.

Recent plot foiled:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18999503/

All of the terrorists in the world aren't based in the Middle East, there is a thing called sleeper cells, as Europe has recently come to experience. So yes it is good we "are taking the fight to them" but we probably should have finished our duties in Afghanistan first, handle Iran, and made sure the Saudi royal family did more to prevent their citizens from flying air crafts into our buildings.

Like I said before, most gov't programs run fairly smoothly, except when incompetent people are placed in high level positions aka FEMA-but the private industry suffers from the same issues aka Enron.

Blowing up buildings doesn't sound like a good idea to me..eh maybe I'm crazy. Social security will be fine..although they aren't acting now, there is no need to rush and panic. I'm concerned about our debt as well, but what can we do, most American's are in some form of debt.

As far as companies go I was looking for something more on the lines of a massive bureacracy/company that we all have a stake in. Not all of us own a Ford, not too mention Ford is just coming out of bankruptcy and Sears-Robuck has been on a steady decline--and who shops at Sears anymore? lol But I do like JC-Penney's.

Perfection is impossible..not even Microsoft can make a program that doesn't crash every 30 min. i.e. Vista--I want a refund..and what is even worse they make the consumer purchase a service pack for a product they designed and screwed up. Sorry that was a side note.

Peace,
JM

quote:

we have not had a terrorist attack in 6 years now

because they're all busy attacking our troops in the middle east. Which is actually a rather smart move by Bush, why fight them here when we can fight them there?

quote:

as numerous plots have been broken up.

Name one plot that's been stopped in the US

quote:

The reason government agencies tend to work better than most private entities is that when problems occur and are uncovered they must fix the problem at some point, because they are held accountable by the people and hopefully our legislators.

Do you see anything being done about programs? in the private sector if they ran buisnesses like our Govt runs programs the stockholders would lynch the CEO and leadership of the company. Hell if we ran a buisness like our goverment governs they wouldn't last a week on the open market

quote:

Yes there will be solvency issues in the next couple of decades

Try right the hell now and replace solvency issues with "essentially all we have is a IOU several trillion note because the govt has spent all that money on other things already"

The best way to solve social security? blow up the building it's associated with a let people take and take a little responsability for themsleves

quote:

name one company or organization that has eeb that capable to provide a service to millions of people consistently for that long of period

Colt, Sears-Robuck, Winchester, Remington, Browning, Ford the list goes on(I know four of those are firearms manufacteres but use what you know)

quote:

we can't expect perfection.

If your using my hard earned cash damn right I'm going to expect if not perfection something a damn sight better then we have now

Well lets go through the history here for a minute. Social Security has made its payments to millions of Americans since 1935--name one company or organization that has eeb that capable to provide a service to millions of people consistently for that long of period. Yes there will be solvency issues in the next couple of decades as expected, but they can be solved.

Although I don't support Bush, we have not had a terrorist attack in 6 years now, so Homeland Security must be doing something right, as numerous plots have been broken up.

Yes we all hate the IRS, but I can't think of any comparable company or organization that is able to get their money from the people like the IRS

Yes our public system could be better, but it is responsible for educating every single human being in America..that is a pretty large task, so we can't expect perfection.

The reason government agencies tend to work better than most private entities is that when problems occur and are uncovered they must fix the problem at some point, because they are held accountable by the people and hopefully our legislators.

peace,
JM

quote:

that have ran smoothly and quite efficiently over many decades: The U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, Public Universities, Homeland Security, the IRS, etc...

dude...

Of that list the Postal Service is the only one that does it's job any where close to well. Social Security is a joke because it's so fucked up and the IRS is such a mess that... well look at tax forms for god's sake. all public schooling is in essence a joke and homeland security has existed for close to 7 years now and done nothing besides annoy me at airports and create a cool color coded threat level chart

quote:

Government agencies and programs have more accountability and success then most private ventures,

when compared to "Rufus's Child Care and Adult Video store" perhaps

quote:

stealing from the people

right we call that taxes

The need for universal health care is more vital today than ever before. A recent study released on Commonwealth Fund.Org found that some 61 million Americans, ages 19-64, either have no health coverage or too little to cover major, catastrophic illnesses. Not too mention the U.S. is the biggest health care spender in the world, but yet we have one of the lowest life-expectancy and infant mortality rates of industrialized nations. Even if health care is not a right, who’s to say it is not right and ethical to provide health care for those who can not afford it. Essentially tax paying American's are already paying for a free health care system. Anytime someone goes to the ER for treatment and can't afford to pay, who do you think pays the tab? YOU! Hospitals increase the costs of other treatments to cover the lack of funds they get from those w/o health insurance. Universal health care would also reduce the need for paperwork, profit motives of hospitals and doctors, among many other important reasons.

So why not create a system that is fair and decreases the need for corrupt insurance companies? Maybe health care is not a birth right, but is it fair to treat those w/o health care like some third-rate citizen? If we can fund hospitals and programs for nation’s and people all over the world, the least we can do is provide those same ideals and policies here at home. And for those who keep bashing our government's ability to run large, complex programs clearly have not done their homework. For all the complaining people make of our government do not forget the many national funded agencies and programs that have ran smoothly and quite efficiently over many decades: The U.S. Postal Service, Social Security, Public Universities, Homeland Security, the IRS, etc...

Government agencies and programs have more accountability and success then most private ventures, considering they must be responsive to the needs of the people, not some over zealous, higher-up who is looking to bank millions in profits. I find it puzzling how those who are against universal health care for the reason of "our big bad government taking control of our lives and picking our doctors" consistently fail to tell the truth. These people don't want public health care because they lose millions in lobbyist’s dollars and are too afraid to confront those corporations for whom they do their dirty business for.

If there is anything corrupt and not working properly in our government it’s our so called leaders who continuously keep lying, cheating, and stealing from the people. We need more accountability to monitor their behavior, so we are not being cheated. In the end health care for all American's makes our society healthier as a whole and reduces a major expense that many low and middle income families just can not afford. I believe there is nothing that our government is not capable of doing if it truly wants to act and bring about positive change and ideas. Health care may not be a right, but it would be against the morals and foundation of our nation to not provide for the common needs of the people.

quote:

Perhaps we're just not jaded enough to automatically assume anything associated with capitalism is screwed up.

Does that mean the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan are not capitalist states?
A well functioning capitalist market could have it's benefits, but it's just as utopic as anarchy and socialism, so as long as it remains that way I prefer the utopian system that favors equal treatment for everyone.

quote:

And, of course, the short-sighed voters who think the budget should lean more towards defense and war than health care and education...

So essentially anyone who has enough knowledge to be aware of the flaws of the current system is an apathetic fool who isn't willing to do anything to change it and correct the flaws so everyone may benefit?

quote:

I see it as more of a business

That's the root of the problem. People's life, health, and wellbeing should not under any circumstances be a bussiness.

quote:

hospitals there are government-run with doctors being government employees

Another missperception. Government run would mean the government is directly involved in management tasks. The hospitals here are government funded, but are managed independently. The government sets yearly health care budgets based on the needs of the sector, and establishes general guidelines to follow, but other than that their involvement doesn't go beyond general policy.
The health minister doesn't visit hospitals and tell them how to do their job, hospital management is probably quite similar to that of the US aside from the fact that all the bills are mailed to government offices.

quote:

seriously, you are all so deluded in your lie about the perfect american system that you're incapable of realizing how screwed up everything around you is.

Perhaps we're just not jaded enough to automatically assume anything associated with capitalism is screwed up.

quote:

With the ammount of taxes americans pay there is more than enough money in the system to set up a well runing social security system.

True enough. Unfortunately, that money is diverted to less helpful areas of the government. Again, that's not the market's fault. That's the trigger-happy government's fault. And, of course, the short-sighed voters who think the budget should lean more towards defense and war than health care and education...

I think the main thing we disagree on is just what health care is. I see it as more of a business, since hospitals here are like companies with doctors and nurses being employees. You see it as a government service, since hospitals there are government-run with doctors being government employees. Different environments produce different opinions.

For those of you who believe health care is not a right...
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, I think the government has an obligation- as long as it has the means- to take care of its citizens, especially those who cannot take care of themselves.
But for those of you who don't share this view with me, maybe this point of view will change your mind (if someone else has posted this already, sorry, but I don't have the time to read through every post). It's in everyone's interest to support universal healthcare. For ever $1 we invest in healthcare, we get $7 back through worker productivity, etc. For example, with universal healthcare, flu shots will be admninistered for free. Think of all the people in the United States who, every year, get the flu. Think of the days of work they miss, the resources they are using, etc. With universal healthcare, this is all avoided. So for those who don't believe that universal healthcare is a right, try looking at it from an economic perspective.

what the fuck is wrong with you people... seriously, you are all so deluded in your lie about the perfect american system that you're incapable of realizing how screwed up everything around you is.

Health care is a free right of every human being, period. If for some obscene reason you believe that by paying for it you're getting something the rest of the world misses out on you're just plain ignorant. European governments aren't overly involved in public life here, like amp's anti socialist paranoia woulde have us believe, the government doesn't decide where you have to work, how you have to do it, or even how much you get payed. It depends entirely on the hospital's direction.

I'm sick of you being blatantly wrong and not realizing it, wake the fuck up...

quote:

When it comes to health insurance, there are many options, some cheaper than others.

But all of them involve paying, health care should be free. Simply by having to pay for it you allready exclude a large portion of society who doesn't make a large enough income to provide for it. With the ammount of taxes americans pay there is more than enough money in the system to set up a well runing social security system.

quote:

It simply isn't cost effective to give things away. Do that and people will go out of business.

Yeah, that's why the best place for doctors is britain where health care is 100% free and all of them are government employees.
You don't give anything away for free from an employers perspective, the doctors recieve their great salaries anyway, the only difference is that instead of me or you paying them with cash at the hospital or through a corrupt insurance company, we leave the hospital for free because my taxes have allready contributed their share to the doctors salary.
Does that make sense or need I simplify more?

Let me say this right off the bat: yes the health care system is screwed up, but that doesn't reflect upon the market economy, which is still doing what it's supposed to do.

quote:

we must asume people will pay whatever they are capable of paying because that is the only possible option

But that's not the case. There isn't just one possible option. When it comes to health insurance, there are many options, some cheaper than others. There is freedom of choice when it comes to getting insurance. It may be limited, but there still is choice. Thus, what amp said about the free market still stands. People won't buy what's too expensive for them if there's a cheaper alternative. And there's always a cheaper alternative. That's the beauty of free markets: no one's regulating who can enter the market. There will always be competitors to big companies.

From what I understand about free markets, it works like this: Company A enters the market and soon gains a very large share due to the cheapness of their product. Once they've gained control of the market, they raise their prices. However, once this happens, new competitors will enter the market, offering the same services for less. Company A will then drop prices to drive the other companies out of business. It's a rather vicious circle, but it corresponds to the way the market functions. Prices will rise and drop depending on who's in control of the market. The consumer doesn't benefit when one company (or a small consortium of companies) is in control, but when prices drop due to competition, they will benefit.

It's true that capitalism isn't about the little guy. It never was. It simply isn't cost effective to give things away. Do that and people will go out of business. Then no one will get the services. Markets tend to take care of themselves, as I showed. Interfering generally mucks things up (look at the welfare state in Britain during Margaret Thatcher's time as PM; that didn't work out too well in the end).

Sure

quote:

we must therefore assume that the majority of the consumer base are satisified with current prices and services.

Wrong, we must asume people will pay whatever they are capable of paying because that is the only possible option. You see, if you don't pay, and for any reason you get sick or have an accident, you are completely screwed.
So in fact, people paying whatever companies charge for their services just proves that people have a questionable need.
I don't have that need because for me it's free, it's not somehthing I have to worry about at all because by simply being a human being I am entitled to free health care here, as is the rest of the western world exceptuating americans.

quote:

in a properly executed free market

And what makes you think the american free market is properly executed? exactly; it isn't.