Healthcare is 'a privilege...not a right': GOP lawmaker

Do people really think that if the government takes over and we have universal health care that anything is actually going to be different or better?

If that happens, I predict:

* Fewer doctors
* More patients
* More BS and bureaucracy
* Less freedom of choice in medical options and treatments
* Tax hikes galore...one after the other after the other after the other

And, in the end, ultimate failure.

It is not the government's role to take care of us. It is not the government's role to prop us up and be responsible for us from cradle to grave. If people feel so strongly that "society" needs to provide for the poor and needy, then give to charity. That's their job. It is what they are there for.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Annee

 

I remember when doctors use to carry a littler black bag and came to visit you at home.

Yes this was back in 1960s I was a child then.

Yes me too. I'm 62+. And it was in Los Angeles - not some rural country town.

Naturally liberties, as defined by the Constitution, are a clear reflection of the fact that life is harsh. If it were not, we would have completely different sentiments on issues of morality and work ethic. Unfortunately for us, so many people in this country are so caught up in their own lives they can not possibly foresee any technological change that might bring about this change. I am totally disappointed in Obama. He said he had visions for technological change. Why not actually get a brainstorm session going and see how to address this problem without affecting the tax base?

I do not believe free health care should be provided on the basis of tax subsidy, because it is not a viable long term strategy for a country bathed in greed and a general sense of entitlement. But there definitely are better we can approach this. Technology, if appropriately applied, can address major issues of scarcity in the medical industry. Law isn't the only policy.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
Your grandparents lived in a different world. It doesn't have to be the same now.

If you want to talk logical fallacies, you're engaging in blatant chronological snobbery. Just because our grandparents grew up in the past doesn't mean that abandoning their values is a positive development. You should never feel good about depending on government handouts for survival; if you break the spirit of self-reliance, you ruin lives. You do not have a basic right to demand service from anyone else without paying for it, be it for healthcare or even food. People may choose to donate those things to you out of charity, but charity is not one of the roles of the US government defined by the constitution. Note it says "promote the general welfare" not "provide for the general welfare." There is a vast difference between those statements, a fact that is lost on those with an entitlement mentality, who believe we have a basic right to demand service from others.

I don't support that Free anything should be easy.

If you have to stand in line for 4 hours - - then you have to stand in line for 4 hours.

I just support basic humanity.

reply to post by djvexd



Then how do you explain this?
www.nytimes.com...

and

www.huppi.com...

notice some of those countries are socialist.

Your dogma is showing

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by 44soulslayer

 

My friend the cancer treatment you talk about is still been payed by tax payer dollars.

No body in our nation goes out without health care actually usually the tab goes to the patients but what they don't pay comes from you and me.

So is lame argument actually taking into consideration that we still pay at a higher cost.

Still tax payer money.

Is many insurance that do not pay for any type of cancer treatments at all

Again, what occurs at the moment is still unconstitutional.

I don't know if your assertion is correct... and I'm not sure it is, but if the taxpayer is already paying for it then why do you need any further increases in the degree of socialisation?

Are you basically suggesting broadening medicare to others who need it? You can do that if you want, but you should know that when in a life threatening condition, people will still choose private medical. The DRG system of Medicare is pretty corrupt and arbitrary, as to be expected with socialised medicine. What I mean is that if you think private medical is overpriced, wait until you get the tab for socialised healthcare... of course, that's only if you're rich. In the end, that's who will have to pay for a totally socialised healthcare system. Its inevitable and undeniable.

Progressive taxes = redistributive wealth schemes
Socialised healthcare = redistributive responsibility schemes

I'm against both.

Anyway, I stated my case pretty much in my first post so all I'm doing now is splitting hairs!

The worshippers of money are out in force in this thread I see.

Have people forgotten that without a society, money counts for nothing?

Have they forgotten that without society there is nothing?

How many of those having a good moan about it being "their money that they worked hard for" have spared a moments thought as to how that money is created, by whom and for whom?

It's very easy to concentrate on the accumulation of wealth, without a second thought for those whose lives are being affected by individual actions - that's why we are in the current economic mess.

The motto "Greed is Good" belongs in the last century along with gordon gekko.

We have learned nothing, it seems from the latest round of excesses perpetrated by those who run the banks and the insurance companies.

We have not yet learned that as a society we have a moral duty to help and protect the weakest members of our societies.

In other words we are not the advanced species we like to think we are - not while this kind of wooly, ultra conservative thinking is still prevalent in the world.

reply to post by ngchunter


Well, that's another logical fallacy, isn't it? I did not state that they are irrelevant merely because they are old. You put those words in my mouth, and then contended them. So you're having a conversation with yourself? I said "it doesn't have to be the same now". We have the technology to address scarcity. Scarcity was an issue in their time. Their moral attitude surrounded that harsh reality. But in this day and age, if we abandon such rhetoric, we could apply ourselves in creating a positive solution to the problem.

For one, digitizing national medical records would relieve a massive strain on the industry as a whole. A free health care system might not cost you another penny in that case over the long run.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by djvexd


okay, I will correct myself...
if you don't have the $2,000 that the doctor wants as a down payment for the operation, and you aren't on a first name basis with some of your state representatives.....
you will lie in bed with a splint on your leg till it becomes infected, ganggreen or whatever happens....and it becomes an lifethreatening emergency......then ya, you will be taken care of...happy??

don't tell me I am operating on a premise that no money means to care...
I am operating on experience!! I WAS THE ONE WITH THE BROKEN ANKLE!!!

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by rockieboy

 

And that is where you are wrong. In an industry in America that is already substabtially underpaid ( nursing and medical assistants) this idea will only cripple the amount of people willing to put the effort forward. Aside from most aspiring doctors want to serve the people , most also look at the financial security of the fact, hence why they put the 8+ years, plus the 100k+ dollars into thier training. It is a sacrifice for the better. But when you institute "socialized healthcare" the quality of said care goes down. Doctors salaries are capped and number of nurses/assistants is limited due to budgetary concerns. Hence peolpe stop striving. Why would someone want to put themsleves into 100k+ debt in order to make 60-80k a year? .....

The industry as you accept it is 'substantially underpaid'?

Where does their money come from? It comes from US. Are you saying we don't pay enough? It begs the question "enough for what?" Enough to maintain a posh elite lifestyle to which apparent all doctors are 'entitled'?

Take up the cost of medical training with the educational institutions who determined what it would be. The truth is, they - just like the other 'commercialized' institutions in our country have made patsies out of the doctors, bilking them into debt, subverting their culture to one of 'elite membership', and then reducing them to 15-minute body mechanics. So far, the devolution of the medical profession has been the fault of two specific agencies; one of which are the doctors themselves, who could have easily formed a resistance to the commercialization, but instead opted to be absorbed into the greater profit paradigm.

Now it's too late, the government has got involved and convoluted the process into something that is a detriment to society, rather than a benefit.

Of course, this is all generalization. And frankly I agree with your closing comment regarding personal responsibility. ANd I would like to add that Physicians are not the only professionals who are wrapped up in this paradigm.

But I will not conced the point that medical professional are underpaid.

Sorry, square peg, round hole.

reply to post by budski

We have not yet learned that as a society we have a moral duty to help and protect the weakest members of our societies.

Then, fine. Donate to charities that actually help those in need. That's what I do and I sure as hell don't make a lot of money.

Government is not in the business of "moral duties". It is not their place in society.

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Well, that's another logical fallacy, isn't it?

The constitution stating that the government is to promote rather than provide for is a fallacy? Really? I didn't know that.

I did not state that they are irrelevant merely because they are old.

Yes you did, you said they lived in a "different world" and discarded their beliefs on that basis.

We have the technology to address scarcity. Scarcity was an issue in their time.

Scarcity is still an issue in our time - service of any form is a limited resource. You don't even seem to know what the word means. I hate to break it to you, but we can't all wave a magic wand and make a diagnosis and the appropriate medicine appear out of thin air. Maybe in 100 or a 1000 years when advanced nanobots are a limitless resource powered by limitless thermal energy, but not today. Digitizing the medical records is just a thinly veiled excuse to ration medical care through centralized planning, cut care to people "too old" to "benefit enough," rather than a free market based system. Has nothing to do with magically eliminating scarcity.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by ngchunter]

Isn't government society and society government?

What makes up society? Citizens.

reply to post by Annee


Then, citizens should do for citizens.....charity.

Citizens should depend on other citizens....charity.

Citizens depending on government to take care of them and provide for them.....quasi-socialism.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Because as it stand right now is not control as what is been charged for treatments or how loses are covered when the patients fail to forward the bill.

Non profits hospitals like the one I volunteer at, in my neck of the woods have a pot, that means that if somebody fail to pay for their care the money doesn't come from the tax payer but from that pot.

At the end of the year the tax payer money that is pay for treatments that are not covered are given back in a way of a check to the city/state.

Non profits means that is not body making money from the hospital but the money generated goes back into the hospital for improvements.

I am talking about Phoebe here in GA, very good service and it has not stop the hospital from getting better and bigger.

The fact that you posted something from Michael Moore's head is evidence that you are nothing more than a sheeple. You, nor Mr. Moore understand what is happening ,nor what will happen if socialized medicine is allowed. You see this as FREE DOCTOR VISITS AND TREATMENT FOR ALL! So far from the truth. Last time I checked the U.S. healthcare system was a leader if not THE leader in treatments and research (aside from stem cells). WHY? Becasue the gov't doesn't have a say in how the money is spent. You can site countries from around the world that have socialized medicine but NONE of them are a republic. Differnt things all together.

reply to post by skeptic1


Says the brainwashing that people have recieved - but here, if we are giving them OUR money then it is up to us to decide what they do with it, not the other way around.

And most people want social programmes including healthcare.

The reason why people think it is not the business of government is because that is what they have been programmed to believe.

Just as they are programmed to believe that the bail out is a good idea, and that spending nearly a trillion PA on weapons is a good idea.

A society has obligations - end of story.

Public schools are socialism
Paved streets are socialism
Sewers are socialism

We live in a socialist society - its really time to stop fearing the word Socialism.

Anything can be done right or wrong - - its all about degree.

reply to post by ngchunter


Scarcity is only an issue because people aren't willing to provide solutions. They aren't willing to take a hit in the short run for worthwhile social goals. The problem is that our political, social and economic institutions lag behind our technological capacity. And our rational foresight lags even further behind. If you don't see that as a possibility, then the entire country will be indefinitely stuck in a self perpetuating dilemma.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by cognoscente]