Question raised by "Sicko"

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's a map. See a trend?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

Yes, I see the loss of economic and social liberty.

We've got our own problems with corporate interest controlling policy. Let's not let them have direct access to our bank accounts.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that forbids making sure every citizen has healthcare. Oh it must be that health insurance inhibits life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We'd all be dead and sad if we were insured! I'm sure glad the founding fathers foresaw the medical system of 2007 and forbade universal health care.

Where in The Constitution does it say you are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Read it. Read The Constitution. Read it.

Read it again. Then come back and post. I think you're mixing up historical documents.

Yeah you're right, I was thinking of the DoI, but the point still stands that there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding universal healthcare.

Read the Constitution again.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The power is NOT given the the Federal government, therefore you would have to create an Amendment to do anything at the Federal level.

So what you are saying is that a Supreme Court has struck down Medicaid and Social Security?



The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes in order to pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare of the U.S.; to borrow money on the credit of the U.S.; to regulate commerce with other nations and between the states; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in Washington D.C, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's a map. See a trend?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

Yes, I see the loss of economic and social liberty.

We've got our own problems with corporate interest controlling policy. Let's not let them have direct access to our bank accounts.

Private sector middlemen are a huge inefficiency in the operation of the government. "Single payer" is the best for the taxpayer and the nation. You know how a large portion of what we pay for health insurance is profit for insurance companies? Imagine if there was no corporate profit involved..

The Canada example has been beaten to death.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: tasmanian
First off we dont have the best health care in the world. You would rather pay your insurance company to cover you then to pay taxes and cover everyone?

You'd rather have the government that brought us Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, out of control spending, grand-scale corruption in every nook and cranny from both aisles controlling your health care options?

Grand-scale corruption in every nook and cranny? Are you being serious?

What on earth makes you think that the political policies of the Bush administration mean that the government is incapable of funding private insurance for everyone, or providing public healthcare? Last I checked everyone was praising the troops and the military leadership, and we seem to be very proud of NASA and our National Parks, and yet people have this idea that "the government" is inefficient, ineffective, etc.

Well, yes you are right in a way. Bush is a liberal. More of a statist, war-mongering type than most Democrats, but both Democrats and Republicans are globalist liberals bent on power and corrupted by corporate lobbyists.

There are very few fiscal conservatives left in America. Most are politically apathetic, a few are in the Libertarian party, and some are still the the GOP but they aren't really paying attention to policy.

The government is inefficient. Who the fuck praises state parks? NASA and science aren't funded enough IMO, but that should be up to the people. Our troops are spread thin over 100+ nations. Our economy is crippled from this overhead, and slowly the rest of the world is catching up because they don't have this burden.



I'm going on a rant here, but you don't seem to get how our government works. You keep saying "Everyone else is doing it", "it will be cheap because foreign medical systems with UHC are cheaper", "only 3rd world nations don't have UHC."

You are totally ignoring the real problem with our government. Here's some background on policy/taxes:

1. Corporate interests twist policy in their financial favor.
2. Government raises taxes to cover the bill.
3. Corporate interests keep pushing.
4. Government is out of money, and so it uses the Federal Reserve to create more USD in supply. The Feds are also pressured by banks to perpetually bail out bad credit habbits -- also reduces USD value.
5. More USD = USD is worth less. Consequently inflation rises slightly, but the cost of foreign goods increases, namely energy and goods. THIS IS A TAX ON THE POOR!
6. Because cost of living is higher, the government is more able to try to take control of healthcare.

So these corporate healthcare interests would be against your oh-so efficient vision of UHC, right? Then why are they throwing millions at Hillary and Obama? Is it from the kindness of their heart?

Are you this gullible? I bet you also think that Hillary is anti-war too.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that forbids making sure every citizen has healthcare. Oh it must be that health insurance inhibits life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We'd all be dead and sad if we were insured! I'm sure glad the founding fathers foresaw the medical system of 2007 and forbade universal health care.

Where in The Constitution does it say you are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Read it. Read The Constitution. Read it.

Read it again. Then come back and post. I think you're mixing up historical documents.

Yeah you're right, I was thinking of the DoI, but the point still stands that there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding universal healthcare.

Read the Constitution again.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The power is NOT given the the Federal government, therefore you would have to create an Amendment to do anything at the Federal level.

So what you are saying is that a Supreme Court has struck down Medicaid and Social Security?



The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes in order to pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare of the U.S.; to borrow money on the credit of the U.S.; to regulate commerce with other nations and between the states; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in Washington D.C, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.

General Welfare? I don't think that the founders meant that redistributing wealth and controlling people's lives without representation as "general welfare." This nation was founded to get away from such violations of individual freedom.

The Federal Government is corrupt. Just because the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, does not mean that it is constitutional. Just because Bush declared war on a tactic does not give him the constitutional right to declare war. Just because the Congress created a Centralized Bank, does not give them the constitutional right to do so.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's a map. See a trend?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

Yes, I see the loss of economic and social liberty.

We've got our own problems with corporate interest controlling policy. Let's not let them have direct access to our bank accounts.

Private sector middlemen are a huge inefficiency in the operation of the government. "Single payer" is the best for the taxpayer and the nation. You know how a large portion of what we pay for health insurance is profit for insurance companies? Imagine if there was no corporate profit involved..

The Canada example has been beaten to death.

Or we could chuck the whole corporate interest thing that we have now and go back to free markets.

You are correct to point out the inefficiencies of corporations controlling things. But they're only able to do this through the government regulations that they bribe into law.

Is this woman going to free us from this corporatism plague?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/1...care_clinton/index.htm

She's in bed with them. Sorry, UHC isn't a magic fix. Just like Ethanol isn't a fix, or the war on terror, or the war on poverty, or the war on drugs. It's all expensive nonsense.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Legend
Here is a bunch of science supporting my claim that healthy eating is very beneficial to health, and prevents major disorders such as heart disease and cancer.

http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=132
http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=40
http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=104
http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=43
http://whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=9



Now that we've got that out of the way, please tell me how politicians that are funded by corporate medical interests, such as Hillary Clinton, could device socialized medicine that isn't in the interest of the corporations taking away your money.

Don't be mistaken that I support the status quo. I'm for going back to free markets. Corporatism doesn't work.

Mind backing up your claim that Hilary is funded by corporate medical interests? You have me intrigued. I already don't like her, but if she has links to medical insurance companies that'll be the biggest nail in the coffin.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Adn4n

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I just saw Sicko and have also been reading some health-care related things lately and am curious.

What % of Americans are actually fully covered in case of medical disasters like cancers and tumors etc. with insurance rates that would remain affordable [Ie: the rates dont jump to $10,000+/month]

I hear so much negatives about it, but I havent seen any actual number on who are/arent covered.

A higher percentage than would be taken care of in a socialized medicine country, where it would be covered 100% but the waiting list would be such that treatment wouldn't begin until after you were already dead.

That is so wrong I cannot believe you actually believe this.

It's correct. Every country with UHC has a 100% mortality rate from medical disasters because of those gosh darned lines! NO ONE gets treated EVER. It's not like you can just walk in on a Tuesday afternoon and get treated for anything, oh no, you have to make an appointment MONTHS in advance.

Obviously it's wrong, it's flame bait. Only a moron could seriously believe that, and I like to believe that ATOT is mostly composed of intelligent, sarcastic people and people who like to pretend they're stupid for my amusement.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that the statistic you're mentioning is the portion of GDP spent towards healthcare, not taxes.

Spending on healthcare is a good thing.

And taking my money to give to others is a BAD thing.

We have the best healthcare in the world. But like everything in life it isn't free.

Insurance is just that - insurance. You insure things that are important to you. If you choose not to insure (or underinsure) your health then that is your problem. This is what is best for society. The cream rises and we move forward.

If you got cancer and had to go to the hospital tomorrow, would your insurance fully pay for your hospital care? Would you be stuck with huge bills for cancer treatments that you could probably never pay off?

It's an important question to ask yourself when criticizing others for not choosing the premier health care plans.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's a map. See a trend?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

Yes. A loss of freedom.

Coincidentally, here's another map.

http://technology.newscientist...3145/dn13145-1_827.jpg

How can anyone claim that UHC is a loss of freedom, anyway? You're paying approximately the same amount either way - either as taxes or to an insurance company. Why do you so adamantly oppose universal healthcare when EVERYONE benefits, including yourself?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Here's a map. See a trend?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png

Yes, I see the loss of economic and social liberty.

We've got our own problems with corporate interest controlling policy. Let's not let them have direct access to our bank accounts.

Private sector middlemen are a huge inefficiency in the operation of the government. "Single payer" is the best for the taxpayer and the nation. You know how a large portion of what we pay for health insurance is profit for insurance companies? Imagine if there was no corporate profit involved..

The Canada example has been beaten to death.

Or we could chuck the whole corporate interest thing that we have now and go back to free markets.

You are correct to point out the inefficiencies of corporations controlling things. But they're only able to do this through the government regulations that they bribe into law.

Is this woman going to free us from this corporatism plague?

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/1...care_clinton/index.htm

She's in bed with them. Sorry, UHC isn't a magic fix. Just like Ethanol isn't a fix, or the war on terror, or the war on poverty, or the war on drugs. It's all expensive nonsense.

Did you bother reading the article? It actually paints Hillary in a fairly good light. I would suggest using a more derisive, conservative source next time you imply that Hillary is the lapdog of the medical corporations. I'd look for some myself, I'm just lazy.

 

[eshtog]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think that the statistic you're mentioning is the portion of GDP spent towards healthcare, not taxes.

Spending on healthcare is a good thing.

And taking my money to give to others is a BAD thing.

We have the best healthcare in the world. But like everything in life it isn't free.

Insurance is just that - insurance. You insure things that are important to you. If you choose not to insure (or underinsure) your health then that is your problem. This is what is best for society. The cream rises and we move forward.

LOL, do you seriously think we have the best healthcare in the world? Most of the time US doctors tell you that you need to take some pills, you have cancer, or you need surgery. Also the US has no preventive healthcare at all.

 

[Pathogen03]

Originally posted by: randym431

A higher percentage than would be taken care of in a socialized medicine country, where it would be covered 100% but the waiting list would be such that treatment wouldn't begin until after you were already dead.

This is the memo they want you to believe. You got the memo I see!

Notice in the last rep debate, when Rudy was trying to make a Hillary-care joke, and no one laughed?

Talk about being out of touch with reality concerning American health care.
Guess Rudy got his memo, and no doubt his check(s).

The Lancet article cited says 13% of cancer patients who need radiation in UHC Britain dont get it due to wait times/shortage of equipment. And the average time between diagnosis and the beginning of treatment is 18 weeks.

I recently hurt my knee. Called about an apointment thursday. I went in for an X-ray monday. they scheduled me for an MRI tuesday, and im having surgery this coming monday. Thats pretty fast imo. And the gap is only so long from tues-mon as they need about 3 days to analyze the mri report.

 

[Pathogen03]

Some other interesting facts:


preface: YES there is no standardized system for wait lists in canada. YES it has been beaten to death due to its many inefficiencies.

Healthcare spending per capita in Canada 9.4%
healcare spending per capita in USA 8.0%

Commonly 20-30% of those on wait lists are found in the international literature to
be inappropriately placed, because they have already received the procedure, have died,
never knew they were on a list, were placed on the list in the first place for reasons
unrelated to medical necessity, or were no longer awaiting the procedure for some other
reason." [1]

http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf

As can be seen by the data from British Columbia, waiting time varies by
specialty. For example, the median wait time for orthopedic surgery was 9.3 weeks, whereas the
median wait time for vascular surgery was 2.7 weeks. Similarly, the waiting time varies by
procedure as well, as evidenced by the waiting times for endarterectomy (3.0 weeks), cataract
surgery (9.4 weeks), gall bladder surgery (5.1 weeks), hip replacement (21.8 weeks), and knee
replacement (28.3 weeks).

The median wait time to see a specialist for a new illness or condition was 4.0 weeks
[95% CI, 3.4-4.6]. 47.9%, 40.7%, and 11.4% of Canadians in the survey reported
waiting less than 1 month, 1-3 months, and more than 3 months to see a specialist,
respectively. The proportions varied between provinces.

Every year, the Fraser Institute, a prominent free-market think tank, publishes a survey
based on physician estimates of waiting times for their patients. In 2004, the survey found the
following:
? Median wait time between visiting a general practitioner and consultation with specialist:
8.4 weeks
? Median wait time between visiting a specialist and receiving treatment: 9.5 weeks
? Median wait time for CT: 5.2 weeks
? Median wait time for MRI: 12.6 weeks

3 months for an MRI.. I waited less than 24 hours, even for a non-emergency...



\--

edit


Just wanted to clarify, I dont think the American health system is *perfect* by any means,
but it seems a lot of people are just USA-bashing because its a trendy thing to do. I am currently a 30,000/year single employee who is covered by his works healthcare.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97
I just saw Sicko and have also been reading some health-care related things lately and am curious.

What % of Americans are actually fully covered in case of medical disasters like cancers and tumors etc. with insurance rates that would remain affordable [Ie: the rates dont jump to $10,000+/month]

I hear so much negatives about it, but I havent seen any actual number on who are/arent covered.

A higher percentage than would be taken care of in a socialized medicine country, where it would be covered 100% but the waiting list would be such that treatment wouldn't begin until after you were already dead.

bs

I live in a country with universal coverage and there are ZERO waiting lists here
there are countries with a good system of universal healthcare and there are countries with a bad system, they are not all the same

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that forbids making sure every citizen has healthcare. Oh it must be that health insurance inhibits life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We'd all be dead and sad if we were insured! I'm sure glad the founding fathers foresaw the medical system of 2007 and forbade universal health care.

Where in The Constitution does it say you are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Read it. Read The Constitution. Read it.

Read it again. Then come back and post. I think you're mixing up historical documents.

Yeah you're right, I was thinking of the DoI, but the point still stands that there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding universal healthcare.

Read the Constitution again.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The power is NOT given the the Federal government, therefore you would have to create an Amendment to do anything at the Federal level.

So what you are saying is that a Supreme Court has struck down Medicaid and Social Security?



The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes in order to pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare of the U.S.; to borrow money on the credit of the U.S.; to regulate commerce with other nations and between the states; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in Washington D.C, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.

General Welfare? I don't think that the founders meant that redistributing wealth and controlling people's lives without representation as "general welfare." This nation was founded to get away from such violations of individual freedom.

The Federal Government is corrupt. Just because the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, does not mean that it is constitutional. Just because Bush declared war on a tactic does not give him the constitutional right to declare war. Just because the Congress created a Centralized Bank, does not give them the constitutional right to do so.

Ensuring a basic human right for all your citizens is not a violation of individual freedom. It's right there in the Constitution that the federal government has the right to provide for common defense and general welfare. A lot of people say that the gov has no right to keep a standing military, but that's a necessity in this century and the last, and it's allowed by the Constitution.