why are you against universal healthcare?

navigator said:
When you look at the absolute quality of heathcare, responsivenesss and overall effectiveness are real indicators. Infant mortality and life expectancy stats are just window dressings used for propaganda.
Click to expand...
Life expectancy is s bit dodgy, but infant mortality (including stillbirths, etc) is a basic stat used to measure welfare across the board.

The US rates far below first world average on responsiveness and overall effectiveness, as well. You have to remember that those denied care are included in such averages - the treatment of at least a third of the population of the US rates a 0 or near 0 on the responsiveness and effectiveness scale. I'm working with a guy who is currently in his fifth year of living with a dislocated collarbone, for example. That is very, very poor "responsiveness" and "effectiveness".
navigator said:
We have all those things, what many do not want is a government that forces you to buy healthcare.
Click to expand...
Try taking away their Medicare, see what they say.
 
Why don't car crashes count? It's all part of our infrastructure. Europe invests in rail, which means fewer people are driving.
 
spidergoat said:
Why don't car crashes count? It's all part of our infrastructure. Europe invests in rail, which means fewer people are driving.
Click to expand...

"Europe" isn't a country or a person. "Europe" doesn't invest in anything. People do. And people can invest in it here, too! It's called the stock market.
 
The governments of the EU do indeed invest in public services. Some things are too important to gamble with.
 
spidergoat said:
The governments of the EU do indeed invest in public services. Some things are too important to gamble with.
Click to expand...

Great! Since they're so important, people shouldn't have a problem getting together to voluntarily invest in these things.
 
Norsefire said:
I don't think anyone deserves free anything. They have to work for it. Let us not forget the words of John Smith, "He who does not work, shall not eat!"

That being said, I am not against helping the needy in their time of need; but, why through government bureaucracy, interference, and inefficiency? If you are truly so interested in helping the father laid off from his job, then go and help him yourself. And get your neighbors, and let them get their neighbors; charity is much nobler than welfare, and you don't sacrifice your independence with it.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about sitting home on welfare. I am not for the bums sitting home, waiting for welfare checks to go and buy some beer.

I am talking about good, decent ppl deserve to have their medical needs treated without worrying about, if they can afford it or not.
How many ppl don't go to see a doctor, or to the hospital because they know they can't afford the bill.
Here in Canada that is one stress I don't have to worry about.
My second son needed surgery at 6 weeks old and was hospitalized for a few days. Who knows what the bill would have been, if we did not have the Health Care System that we have here. I had 2 kids and 2 C-Sections, which I probably would not have been able to afford either.
I have watched a few programs where ppl lost their homes, to medical expenses. One guy had a table saw accident and had to decide which finger he could afford to have reattached. I thought it was pretty sick that the Doctor told him the prices of each of the 3 fingers he lost. He ended up, only putting one back on. :bugeye: How can a Dr sit back and say ok you can only afford the index finger.....ok that's all you get then. The whole program was a nightmare. Made me thankful to live in Canada.
 
Shorty, you completely ignored my emphasis on charity and community involvement. If you truly care, and I truly do, then we should help the poor and help those that can't afford health care through our own personal efforts, not through government plunder and bureaucracy.

It's called personal responsibility and charity as opposed to government welfare. Thus, I do not disagree that we ought to help the poor; I am simply saying that we can do this without sacrificing our independence.

Plus, many doctors and hospitals do offer charity care. I was at Memorial-Hermann hospital only a few months ago to get my leg stitched up after a fairly deep wound; thankfully, I have insurance. But while I was there, I saw various plaques talking about the hospital's charity care policy, where eligible people can receive their treatment free of charge or for significantly reduced prices.
 
spidergoat said:
If charity is so great, why do so many people go bankrupt due to lack of health care?
Click to expand...

Maybe because nobody is actually helping anybody. Charity is great........but our society full of fat, lazy losers isn't the ideal breeding place for charity. And more welfare will only increase apathy and dependence.


Charity is noble; thus, we few, we happy few, that do care about others ought to go out there and help.

One good idea would be to start a non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation that could be a sort of "insurance company" that isn't for profit, and is more accessible to all. It could be community-run. That's a good idea, in my opinion.
 
iceaura said:
Life expectancy is s bit dodgy, but infant mortality (including stillbirths, etc) is a basic stat used to measure welfare across the board.
Click to expand...

You can choose to use the stat, but you can't objectively deny the disadvantage it puts the US at.


The US rates far below first world average on responsiveness and overall effectiveness, as well.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider).

The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
Click to expand...
 
Norsefire said:
Maybe because nobody is actually helping anybody. Charity is great........but our society full of fat, lazy losers isn't the ideal breeding place for charity. And more welfare will only increase apathy and dependence.


Charity is noble; thus, we few, we happy few, that do care about others ought to go out there and help.

One good idea would be to start a non-profit 501(c)(3) Corporation that could be a sort of "insurance company" that isn't for profit, and is more accessible to all. It could be community-run. That's a good idea, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

So your plan for health care is basically just a fantasy?
 
navigator said:
If the libs donated charity at the rate conservatives do it wouldn't be such a problem.
Click to expand...
Bigger parking lots at the local Baptist church aren't going to help.
 
spidergoat said:
So your plan for health care is basically just a fantasy?
Click to expand...

No, my plan is for you to get off your ass, along with others, and work together with your community to get problems solved instead of waiting for government handouts. Either that, or suffer the consequences of your laziness.
 
The government is the community working to solve problems. You want to ignore our existing systems to accomplish this kind of thing in favor of something haphazard and ad hoc. It's the difference between professionalism and amateur hour.
 
spidergoat said:
The government is the community working to solve problems. You want to ignore our existing systems to accomplish this kind of thing in favor of something haphazard and ad hoc. It's the difference between professionalism and amateur hour.
Click to expand...

The government is a bunch of disconnected bureaucrats that like to be free with our money. The difference between charity and government is that charity is entirely voluntarily and entirely personal. Government is impersonal and it affects everyone, and usually does a poor job, too.
 
shorty_37 said:
One guy had a table saw accident and had to decide which finger he could afford to have reattached. I thought it was pretty sick that the Doctor told him the prices of each of the 3 fingers he lost. He ended up, only putting one back on. :bugeye: How can a Dr sit back and say ok you can only afford the index finger.....ok that's all you get then. The whole program was a nightmare. Made me thankful to live in Canada.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's disgraceful. Most physicians I know would not leave someone hanging like that. Such a shame that a lot of scum doctors are running around out there and believe me, there are A LOT. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top