It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey
No, its perfectly simple SlapMonkey, and this is nothing to do with the first amendment.
If people consistently vote for people who refuse to socialise medicine, then they are voting FOR private medicine, which, as can be very easily demonstrated, is bad for patients, costs hundreds of percent more than it should or needs to, and means that despite spending more per head on healthcare, this expenditure does not translate to improvements in life expectancy, commensurate with that spending. If you vote for private medicine, you choose to be ripped off, you choose to have unaccountable CEOs deciding matters of life and death (not something which ever ought to be left to someone who is worried about the bottom line), rather than qualified, medical practitioners, devoted to the task of life saving, making any and all decisions about the care of patients.
Basically, the people who vote for private medicine, have two options, and neither of them involve complaining. One may simply NOT have private medicine which works fairly, correctly, or to the benefit of patients, because the aim of operating a private business is for the creation of wealth for those who own it, not those who work in it, not those who deal with the public, not those who deal with the really hard decisions, the qualified staff. If you vote for a system which by definition is NOT there to benefit the user of the service, but itself, you have no business complaining when it performs exactly as intended. The options therefore, are simple. Vote only for politicians and Presidents who want to socialise healthcare, or bend over, brace yourself, and prepare to not only receive the attention of a proctologist, but also to pay through the sphincter for it also.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps, but the specific list is there in black and white.
The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a legally binding interpretation of the human right to health, which is recorded in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', in a document generally referred to as General Comment 14.
So, it is actually codified as a universal human right.
In 2009, in a study by the American Journal of Public Health, it was found that 45,000 people per year were dying from lack of health care specifically because they could not afford insurance.
So, I'd call the "forced law access to emergency heath care", ineffectual BS. A government snow-job to hide their failures.
Also, (and please forgive my very 'back of the envelope' figures) if your population base is, say 323.1 million people of which 5% have health costs @ $50,000 P/A, that averages out to an annual tax of @ $2,500 per citizen and the health of all those requiring care would be fully funded for a socially acceptable cost.
This has also led to a per capita healthcare cost of about $8,953 P/A. In most other countries in the world, healthcare costs are manageable and far less than half the US cost. It makes sense for governments to assure the best healthcare for its citizens is available, regardless of their income.
The notion that you should not pay a tax for this, because you would be paying for the healthcare of someone else and that you will never get sick, is both morally reprehensible and unreasonable.
For balance, consider that the US government in 2012 spent $52,800,000,000.00 on 'black budget' military projects (above and beyond normal military funding). Such projects persist to this day. Your taxes continue to pay for that.
Wouldn't it be preferable to choose a 'better spend' that actually, provably and directly directly saved the lives of citizens rather than a lot of wasteful "golden hammer" projects that probably won't save any lives, much less have a positive outcome?
originally posted by: seasonal
Are you under the impression that single payer systems have slave Dr.'s and that a tax payer based system paychecks are worth less than a insurance based one?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If people consistently vote for people who refuse to socialise medicine, then they are voting FOR private medicine, ...
... which, as can be very easily demonstrated, is bad for patients, costs hundreds of percent more than it should or needs to, and means that despite spending more per head on healthcare, this expenditure does not translate to improvements in life expectancy, commensurate with that spending.
If you vote for private medicine, you choose to be ripped off, you choose to have unaccountable CEOs deciding matters of life and death (not something which ever ought to be left to someone who is worried about the bottom line), rather than qualified, medical practitioners, devoted to the task of life saving, making any and all decisions about the care of patients.
The options therefore, are simple. Vote only for politicians and Presidents who want to socialise healthcare, or bend over, brace yourself, and prepare to not only receive the attention of a proctologist, but also to pay through the sphincter for it also.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
No one in this country has to worry, while they are laying with their guts hanging out after an accident, whether they will be able to afford to pay for all the surgery they are having. They may worry about how long they can afford to take away from work, before the boss can no longer afford to keep them on. They may worry about whether the government will see to paying them a benefit until they can work again, or in the serious circumstance of life changing injury, whether the government will make getting their long term disability benefit harder than it has to be. But no one... NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.
Many people in the states however, do just that.
Health care is not a right, just a fabricated argument when it is called such. No one should have the right to someone else's products, services, skills, or time without due compensation (paid for by the individual, not a government). We have a right to life, not a right to artificially sustained health.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nonspecific
I understand some of that, but with the way that our American government works, the entire system, IMO, would end up nationalized, like the VA system. It may not be the initial step, but that would be the culmination of it.
I could be wrong, though--but either way, I don't see it happening, so it's not a massive concern of mine and is more of just a hypothetical, philosophical exercise.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: nonspecific
Would love to, but I don't have 77 minutes to devote to it right now. Hopefully I can come back to it, because I'd really like to see what it says.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps, but the specific list is there in black and white.
Zecharia Sitchin wrote an entire group of books surrounding Nibiru and the Annunaki--they're in black-and-white, too, but that doesn't mean that his claims are real.
"Free healthcare" is a unicorn, yet it's cited time after time.
A "right to health" is not synonymous with a "right to healthcare at the taxpayers' expense." I just read the entirety of CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), and it absolutely appears to agree with me. It is in no way a mandate for socialized/universal healthcare.
Call it whatever you want--I call your claim without a link so that I can see the specifics of the claims "ineffectual BS," tantamount to the claims of throwing granny off of a cliff.
America has the best healthcare in the world available for its citizens, regardless of their income.
We have programs that subsidize low-income people or waive their costs altogether. We have programs that fund healthcare for the elderly to certain degrees. We have programs that fund healthcare for our veterans.
Disregarding the hyperbole of the media and politicians, healthcare for the vast majority of Americans is something manageable and affordable, even if most of us may not like the cost involved. But, in a world full of smart phones, designer clothes, LED HD televisions, high-speed internet, and easy-to-get car and home loans, one should also take stock in the idea that most of the people complaining about the cost of caring for their health might not have their priorities in the right place.
First off, that's absolutely your own subjective opinion, not a fact.
Second, if you think that we don't pay taxes that go to government-run healthcare programs, you shouldn't discuss this issue anymore. Even our current insurance model is me paying for someone else's healthcare, as I guarantee, 100%, that I use my insurance less than 90% of the people in my insurance pool.
For balance, consider that spending on our military is a constitutionally mandated budget item, and our government MUST do so. Individual healthcare, not so much.
And no, I wouldn't rather just shuffle the money, I'd rather get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse in our government agencies and reduce the tax burden of the American individual, so that we can keep more of our own property (income) so that maybe people wouldn't bitch about the cost of caring for their health while doing so on social media from a smart phone.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I did not say that people are being denied treatment. I said that people are having to deny themselves treatment, or risk the financial future of their families. That IS happening. They ARE having to choose between getting help for their ailments, or keeping the heating on. That IS happening.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.
Many people in the states however, do just that.
And your suggestion that those who are in such a situation are a relatively small number, when compared to the total population.... That simply does not matter SlapMonkey.
If ANYONE is having to make that choice, then the healthcare system is flawed and needs fixing, the money needs ejecting from the equation completely, so that service users never have to think about it.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I did not say that people are being denied treatment. I said that people are having to deny themselves treatment, or risk the financial future of their families. That IS happening. They ARE having to choose between getting help for their ailments, or keeping the heating on. That IS happening.
You presented your statement with an emergency situation, and closed the comment with this:
originally posted by: TrueBrit
NO ONE in this country, goes without surgery or treatment because it is too costly.
Many people in the states however, do just that.
The truth is, no one in the United States would have to skip an emergency surgery because of the cost, and no one would be denied the surgery because of an inability to pay. THAT is what I was pointing out, and THAT is why I specifically noted "emergency" in my comment.
But to introduce a strawman, I have seen people commenting that they've had to forego surgeries in a timely manner in your country, or have surgeries done on them by non-specialists. Hell, my orthopedic surgeon who did my shoulder surgery two months ago was a surgeon for two years in the NHS in England, and he's the one that explained to me that there are many surgeons tasked by the government to do surgeries that are not their specialties--he, as a shoulder specialist, could be tasked to do a hip replacement surgery. He said that this generally stems from a disproportionate amount of people needing surgeries versus available surgeons in the specialties.
I don't want my shoulder surgery done by a foot surgeon, just for the sake of "free" healthcare.
And your suggestion that those who are in such a situation are a relatively small number, when compared to the total population.... That simply does not matter SlapMonkey.
Bullsh*t it doesn't matter--you don't advocate for more taxes and government control over an industry whose purpose is to save lives and maintain health just because the relative few in the massive population are having a difficult time paying for something. That's not how the American government was designed to work, regardless of whether or not people in Britain agree with that or not.
I understand that philosophies on this matter differ, and that's fine, but to claim that the size of the negatively affected population doesn't matter is absolutely ridiculous, at least as it pertains to this particular subject.
If ANYONE is having to make that choice, then the healthcare system is flawed and needs fixing, the money needs ejecting from the equation completely, so that service users never have to think about it.
This is exactly the approach to this subject that perpetuates appeal-to-emotion arguments--instead of having big money funding the health insurance and healthcare industries, in your approach, you then have massive money (taxation via threat of imprisonment) funding a now-larger government that consistently proves that it is incapable of efficiently running anything with any fiscal responsibility.
I cannot responsibly advocate for such a system.
Obviously, keep being you and keep up your argument, but if these are the foundations on which you are going to try to persuade me or prove your point of view, you're not doing a very good job.
But keep in mind, I've never said that the health insurance (and as a result, the healthcare) system isn't flawed, but I certainly don't think that you have your finger on the solution button. Neither did Obama with the PPACA...and now our system is even more of a f**k up because of it.
Hopefully we can agree on that, at least.