The American Constitution was written at a time when medicine was quite primitive and life expectancy for the average American was not very high. If the founders were alive today and saw how many lives can now be saved with modern medicine they as men of deep affection for their fellow Americans would regret not making universal health care a Constitutional Right. James Madison knew nothing about genetics and how they play an important role in developing marketable skills. If your genes give you an addictive personality you may fall off the rails and become a welfare recipient. I volunteer teaching English to knew immigrants. It takes a year to give them a workable amount of reading and writing. Most of them receive social assistance while they learn. One of my students was born in my country but has a learning disability and will likely receive social assistance for the rest of his life. Humans who are lucky enough to be endowed with marketable genes will find employment in areas that will allow them to enjoy the self esteem of a job well done. People without the right genes are denied this joy and deserve our compassion.

Nothing I have said is contradictory.  Government regulated in the wrong way.  They removed the normal constraints that foster competition and failed to regulate unfair business practices. 

It is a simple cause-effect, Cybert.

Cause: Government gives health insurers an exemption to anti-trust law.
Effect:  Insurers can merge into massive corporations that would likely be impossible for other industries, removing competition from smaller companies and making them (big companies) far more immune to the ill-effects of unfair business practices.

Cause: Government passes laws so that states (government) MUST approve of health insurance providers.
Effect:  A person paying $5800/year for health insurance in New Jersey cannot buy the same health insurance from a company in Kentucky offering it for $960/month.  Again, interstate competition dries up and people end up paying more than they should if competition were free and healthy.

There is plenty of "back-up" and ample evidence to support what I am saying.

On the flip-side, government could pass regulation so that insurence providers find it harder to rescind coverage to people that have been paying in good faith.  Your example of a person paying for 20 years, contracting cancer, and being dropped because of some loophole or unfair business practices should result in massive government fines.  There should be protection for those people.  Government can do this, and most Americans (including this one) would be all for it.

I am against the bill, yes.  It over-reaches.  It has good points, and I have conceded that numerous times.  But these regulations can be passed in a much smaller bill, one that is far easier to understand, and much easier to implement.  I am a proponent of health insurance reform and would be very happy for government regulation as long as the regulations were sensible and justified.

It isn't about profitability.  It is about power.  It is about your cholesterol medication being used as a political bargaining chip during defense appropriations.  It is about experimental cancer treatment being removed from a coverage list because someone wants to build a dam in Wyoming.  You think government is going to act in our best interest at all times, and that is the fatal flaw in your argument.  Politics will inevitably interfere with good health policy.  That is how government and politics works.  Billions of pages have been written about it since the dawn of civilization.

We DON'T know that national health care works better.  Sure, it may cover more people.  That is a strength.  But I am not convinced that the care is better, or even on par with what the insured in the United States have access to.  Medicare has major flaws.  First, in order for you to be secure, you have to have Medigap coverage.  Medicare does NOT cover all of your needs.  Second, there are a lot of people who believe the cost of Medicare is going to outpace our ability to pay for it (and I hold that belief).  With 30 (actually, with baby boomers turning 65, it is closer to 70) trillion dollars of Medicare liability, how can we make it work?  The system is coming down Cybert.  Europe is starting to feel it, and soon, our seniors will as well.  It is unmaintainable and only cost-cutting is going to save it.  I can't prove it, because it would require that I predict the future with certainty.  But the writing is on the wall.

South Korea is not a poor country.  Russia is not a poor country.  Russia is the 8th largest economy in the world.  They would have to be considered a rich country by any definition.  Both have lots of money and their national health systems are failing.  I feel Europe is going down the same path (especially since her population is aging and workforce is shrinking). 

Would you be willing to wait 10 years to see what happens with European health care?  I'm serious, as a matter of really making sure we make the right choice - would you be willing to see where European health care is in 10 years before passing massive health care reform?  Let us see if it is maintainable.  I suspect we will all be singing a different tune in 10 years time. 

In the meantime, could we pass health insurance regulation and try to get the private-sector option back to working the way it should?  If, in 10 years we see little change and Europe is still doing "great", I will gladly join you on the side of nationalized health.  Would this be a reasonable compromise?

No no.  Tort reform deals with malpractice.  Tort reform decreases the cost of malpractice insurance which will decrease costs.  Suing health insurers for illegal rescission is an entirely different matter.  It is a place where government can regulate successfully to be sure that good-faith payers are not denied coverage.  Nothing at all wrong with that. 

Because it isn't YOUR vote, Cybert.  It is OUR vote.  YOU have no control over your medical care in such a world.  WE do.  YOUR coverage and care would be dependent upon what the MAJORITY of America wants.  It does not necessarily reflect YOUR need.  That is, in a nutshell, the Achilles Heel of such a plan.  You assume that everyone will vote based on what your needs are.  But I think it is clear that the country is pretty divided on many issues.  You may get a group in power that does not necessarily "cut it" when it comes to your specific needs.

In contrast, when you can buy your own coverage, YOU control who you purchase from and what your coverage is.  YOU have far more control in such a world. My vote and my worldview have absolutely no baring whatsoever on your health care.  As much as we disagree, I think you would rather MY vote stay out of YOUR health care, right? 

Yet you still need Medigap coverage to cover what the government has deemed too expensive or unnecessary.  Where does that Medigap coverage come from?  The private sector.

No, nationalized health care does not work better.  In fact, the majority of people on Medicare purchase Medigap coverage (or have employer-sponsored coverage) because "nationalized" health care isn't enough. 

I'm not asking you to.  I'm asking you to think.  Do you think health care is better in Saudi Arabia and Oman?  Do you think you would get care in Cuba that is as good as you would get in the United States?  Seriously?  MAYBE if you are uninsured.  Then OK, Cuba is looking mighty fine.  But if you are insured in the United States, there is no comparison.  None whatsoever.

If anything, government has been getting MORE involved over the last 6 decades.  You know, that whole New Deal thing and all.  I agree with you, it has gotten worse, because government has continued to involve itself more and more.  See the U.S. public education system for more details on how government destroys almost everything it touches.

Yes it is.  That is what you are basing most of your argument upon.

Regulation, not nationalization.

So?

Worse in many places around the globe with national health care.

According to you.

Do you know anyone on Medicare?  Believe me, there are PLENTY of horror stories.  Probably 50 million or more when just taking into consideration prescription medication that medicare does not cover.  It isn't free you know.

No, it is controlled with THE vote.  Not A vote.  There is a major difference.  YOU control absolutely squat.  Not a good thing if you ask me. 

And how would you know if the right regulations were hopeless?  They haven't even been tried yet. 

Not so.  They may be cheaper to the individual when they buy those drugs?  But what is the cost to the taxpayer?  What is the cost to the country?  Are those nations forgoing other national goals to maintain lower prices?  And you would be remiss not to account for what Americans can PAY for their medication in comparison to other people.  Have you ever wondered if Americans are subsudizing other nations' medication cost by paying more for it here?  If not, you should start wondering. 

If a company is selling at a high price in a well-to-do market and a lower price in a less well-to-do market, and separation of the markets ends so they find themselves having to charge the same price in both markets, both the company and at least one set of consumers will be made worse off as a result.

Guess where we are as the richest nation on Earth?

Or look at it this way:  have you ever been to Nantucket, or a really well-to-do portion of the country?  Have you ever wondered why it costs $3.00 for a 20 oz Coke on Martha's Vineyard but it is $0.60 in a rural portion of West Virginia?  Same philosophy.  The more people have to spend, the more they will be charged for a product.  We get nailed because we are rich.  Just part of the deal, I suppose.

It actually has nothing to do with economies of scale.  Nothing at all.

Absolutely no way you can prove this.  You can only speculate.  And my opinion is worth the same as yours on this subject.  I think we would pay MORE for care that is inferior to what we have now.

Cryptomaniac

Bottom line:

1) You can make all the arguments you want, but we already have single payer national health. Seniors are overwhelmingly satisfied with Medicare -- 94% according to a recent survey.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/200908 … erage.aspx

2) Medicare requires no lawsuits, lawyers or greedy insurance companies with armies of hires looking to drop patients for profit. It has NOT resulted in long waits, rationing or any other of the scare stories you advocate.

3) We still pay the lowest tax rates in the world. (top rate is 35%)

4) When given the chance and seeing the benefits, people continue to drop private insurance for public health care:

>>>The Census report also found a continuation of a decade-long trend away from employer-sponsored coverage and toward government health programs.

The number of people in Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and other government plans increased by 4.4 million in 2008, boosting the public share of the insured population by more than a percentage point. Meanwhile, the number of people with private coverage dropped by 1 million to reach 201 million.<<<

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/0 … sa0921.htm

Why are people dumping private insurance if it is so great? The only reason to continue our current system is insurance company profits and irrational ideology. National health works here just like everywhere else.

(By the way, the Democrats are currently pushing a bill to eliminate anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies. No doubt the Gang of 41 will block it.)

Last edited by cybert (2010-02-06 23:33:26)

Private insurance is costing much more and more much faster than Medicare, driving up prices with vastly higher overhead.

How Health Insurance Premiums Are Eating Up Middle-Class Incomes
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content … comes.aspx

It remains, 94% satisfaction with our National health.

Private insurers won't dwindle unless national health works first. And they will grow if national health starts to fail. Private insurance is failing. As I proved before, people are leaving for government programs.

Please prove there are many more lawsuits against Medicare than private insurers. Otherwise your point is moot.

How long does the average American work to pay his medical insurance? What if paying more taxes meant paying far less than medical insurance?

"A middle-income family with individual coverage spends on average 22 percent of household income on health care – and some spend up to 50%. "

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hid … index.html

Let's accept 22% of income on average. If you are middle income, say 67,000 a year? Your tax rate is 15%.

http://www.moneybluebook.com/2009-feder … tax-rates/

Now, France has a top tax rate of 40% and full coverage. That is comparable to any country with national health. So if our top rate is 35% with national health only for seniors, let's imagine an absurdly high rate of 5% raise in taxes if we cover all. Okay, if you are middle income, your tax rate goes up to 20%. So? You SAVE the entire 22% you were paying for health care.

And it remains, national health is still a better deal.

I think YOU would like to explain it that way, but that's not what the source says. Yes people are aging and turning to Medicare. They have always had the option of staying with a private insurer. But overwhelmingly, they don't. And perhaps you didn't know, but most medigap coverage is government subsidized. But the article points out that much of the bleed comes also from those who are not elderly, and prefer Medicaid and child insurance programs offered by the government, rather than that of their employers.

Complaining about the "entitlement mentality" doesn't cut it. These are choices being made by working people, who see lower costs and more benefit from government programs that THEIR taxes paid for too.

1) The GOP has proven they see as "loaded down with garbage" any bill sponsored by a Democrat. 2) The number of pages doesn't make legislation bad or good. Sorta like "too many notes" doesn't make a piece of music bad. 3) That we can't afford? It certainly could have been afforded. The CBO covered that.

The Republican consensus is that NONE of the bill should be passed at all. Their "alternate" health care reform is tax cuts and tort reform, neither of which address any of the problems with our health system.

And not one of your sentences here has refuted my original point, National health works here, as everywhere else. Private insurance is costly, corrupt and when given an option, abandoned.

I know Crypto can defend himself, but I'm pretty sure he compassionately makes an exception for people with conditions like you described.

The people he was referring to are those that, say, get time-and-a-half on exams because of a "learning dissability". I know people here at my school who have a clinical right to keep working on a test after others have finished it. Personally, the people that actually use it are ones that don't yet belong in the class or simply didn't study enough in the first place. Hell, I know people that abuse this for no other reason then to make the professor stay later than they wanted - as punishment.

My point here, and the reason for this interjection into your debate, is that I'm tired of being made a villain because I don't support UHC. It's the tactic of cowards and caged animals.

Which are you?

Last edited by Abraxas (2010-02-09 01:53:43)

I'm certainly not as young as I used to be!  I am however old enough to have seen the real world, lived through good times and bad, dealt with pain, suffering, and death, and seen more than I care to of injustice, poverty and disease.

I am not an expert on genetics or neurological disorders and if you read my post you would see that I make an exception to people who have severe disorders.  Abraxas seems to have understood what I was saying. 

Down Syndrome (is there an "s" at the end?) would qualify as a severe disorder.  I've already taken care to include this as an exception. 

Again, I would classify this as severe.  I have never made the claim that these children should be abandoned or anything even remotely close to such a thing.  These kids have severe disorders and special needs, deserve the services provided for them, and I would defend government spending to help them live as enjoyable and productive life as possible.  I have already said as much.

Where I volunteer is not up for debate.  I spend my time where I can and where I feel I contribute the most.  I am not oblivious to the difficulties of people with severe physical and mental disorders and have already stated as much.  I am however against using the term "learning disability" to automatically qualify someone for mediocrity and indolence.  For every Down Syndrome child struggling to live life, there are 10,000 other children (or adults) with nowhere near the same difficulties.  You ask me to cut them just as much slack, but I will not.  They deserve no special treatment and have no excuse for slothful, irresponsible, or self-damaging behaviour.  I don't expect them all to be rocket scientists, but don't tell me they have any excuse for not graduating high school.  I'm not buying it.

What are you talking about?  Full of judgements and devoid of understanding?  Where, might I ask, do you presume to be non-judgemental in your sweeping generalizations?

Lofty words like compassion, judgement and reasoning, and yet you open with "You must be very young. You know nothing about genetic disabilities and how it impacts on learning."  You don't even know me, judge me to be young and unknowledgeable, and you want to lecture me about judging others?

You speak of "increasing my capacity for compassion" as if you have some extraordinary insight on my life, my deeds, or my beliefs?  And I am the judgemental one?

You say, "to not be able to do so deserves better than you are conditioned to give them"; as if you have the slightest clue about what I am "conditioned" to give anyone.  And I am the judgemental one?

In another thread, you offer us this timeless gem:

"Islam will win because it has no qualms about killing anyone who does not want to become a Muslim."

Yet my "submission is full of judgements devoid of understanding"?  And I am the judgemental one?

But we are to believe you when you say, "It took me more than a half century to realize the wrong we do to ourselves by judging others."

Simply astounding.

My apologies to the moderators for continuing this off-topic defense of my "capacity for compassion."   If there were an ignore feature I would gladly put it to use, but no biggie. 

Last edited by Cryptomaniac (2010-02-09 18:53:29)

Wow. One really long post after another. I read the first two pages, then I read some of this page, but like I say...really long posts!

For my two cents worth, getting back to the original question, I personally believe that health care is a human right, but I understand that my personal beliefs don't mean squat to those who don't share them. So that doesn't get us very far.

In addition to my support for health care reform on a moral basis due to my personal  beliefs, I also just think it's a blindingly obvious move from a purely practical viewpoint.

Health care costs are bankrupting the nation. We are facing a Medicare/Medicaid debacle in the next decade if we don't get costs under control. We need to make a fairly dramatic change, and make it soon. We are paying double what many other nations are who are getting as good or better health results. What are they doing right?

The answer is pretty obvious for those willing to see.