A Social Healthcare System Crashes and Burns

[TENAC]

I'm amazed that there are so many Americans who are so concerned about preserving a profit-driving health care system that they want to deny millions of Americans what most of the rest of the industrial world takes for granted- that a basic level of health care is a citizen's right not a privilege to be purchased and that no one should be bankrupted for a catastrophic illness.

I can think of two main reasons. One is that they themselves are covered by health insurance and they fear a change will harm them.  The second reason is that they distrust the government even though universal health care works better than our system in most other industrial countries.

The sad truth is that most of us are selfish and if most of us are covered in the current system we don't want to change in order to help others. As seen on these boards, we'll even demonize those who aren't covered to avoid seeing the issue clearly.

jack, every social healthcare system is failing.  You cannot point to a successful one.  There is no model.

The ramifications of breaking down the US system would be traumatic worldwide. 

[metis]

...every social healthcare system is failing.  You cannot point to a successful one.  There is no model.

The ramifications of breaking down the US system would be traumatic worldwide. 

I see no drive in any country that has universal health care to eliminate it-- including Canada.  Yes, Canadians complain as American complain, even though the complaints are sometimes different and sometimes the same. 

To me, the bottom line is whether we WANT to extend a basic program to Americans who have no coverage-- not whether it can be done.  Imagine yourself and your family with no coverage whatsoever and, because you have a low-paying job, you don't qualify for Medicaid.  Would you be saying much the same as we've seen you post?  Are you aware of how expensive purchasing you own health care insurance is?  Is expense more important than people's health and lives?   

And what about the extra burden that companies have to bear in paying the health care to their employees?  This reduces their competitiveness in the international market, for example, because somehow they have to absorb the cost of these programs.  The ceo of GM, for example, has publicly stated that this is one area that would help them out immensely if they didn't have to finance health care.  On top of this, the competitive pressures are encouraging more and more companies to cut back or eliminate health care programs or jack up co-pays.  Even John McCain has stated that we need a program (he prefers going through existing insurance companies).       

[jacknky]

"Because she is an American with an American spirit, something you will never know anything about."

And you complain about me and others being disrespectful. That was totally uncalled for.

[jacknky]

Tenac,
"jack, every social healthcare system is failing.  You cannot point to a successful one.  There is no model."

France is widely considered to have the best health care in the world.

I read an editorial column in the paper today. As a Conservative you might be interested in his point which basically was that universal health care would be good for US corporations and business. In our current system business bears the majority of the cost of health care which inhibits their ability to be competative in the global market because foreign corporations don't pay directly for health costs. So for example in the automobile industry US automakers must pay (I believe I read) about $3,000 per vehicle for health care costs. Japanese automakers and others don't have that cost so they're at a big advantage.

Of course this isn't the primary reason we need to change our health care system but I thought pro-business Republicans might appreciate the reasoning.

[TENAC]

Tenac,
"jack, every social healthcare system is failing.  You cannot point to a successful one.  There is no model."

France is widely considered to have the best health care in the world.

I read an editorial column in the paper today. As a Conservative you might be interested in his point which basically was that universal health care would be good for US corporations and business. In our current system business bears the majority of the cost of health care which inhibits their ability to be competative in the global market because foreign corporations don't pay directly for health costs. So for example in the automobile industry US automakers must pay (I believe I read) about $3,000 per vehicle for health care costs. Japanese automakers and others don't have that cost so they're at a big advantage.

Of course this isn't the primary reason we need to change our health care system but I thought pro-business Republicans might appreciate the reasoning.

This healthcare system?

French hospitals are as sick as our own NHS
Lois Rogers has reported on the travails of British healthcare for 20 years, but when she got sick in France she wished she was here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1751520.ece

Or this?

French Health Care Expert: France's System Broken, Should Copy US; Media Yawn
By Lynn Davidson (Bio | Archive)
August 27, 2007 - 07:56 ET


Magnet by Souvenirs de Paris

Alert Michael Moore! Both he and the World Health Organization say France has the best health care system in the world, and America's system is barely better than Slovenia's. However, French professor Alice Teil not only said the French system is “not sustainable anymore,” but copying parts of America's could save it.

The French are moving the way of the Canadians; toward privatizing heathcare in their countries.

[metis]

The French are moving the way of the Canadians; toward privatizing heathcare in their countries.

The Canadians are gradually changing to include more elements of the Swedish model, which involves more opportunity for selection and competition, but it does not involve an abandonment of the concept of universal coverage.

[gluadys]

Why on earth should a 78 yr old partially disabled grandma have to work at all!?!  She should be on a comfortable pension so that someone younger can have those jobs. 

Because she is an American with an American spirit, something you will never know anything about.

If she wants to clean houses, fine.  I admire spirit and enterprise as much as the next person.  But if she is in a position that she has to---well, that's despicable.  Any society that treats their elderly like this should hang its head in shame. 

[gluadys]

I found it offensive that she would look down at my grandmothers strong work ethic and personal choice to continue to contribute to society and not just be a leach. 

No one is looking down on your grandma, except a social system that has no respect for her age and health problems.

And living on a pension is not being a leach.  Pension funds are built up by the pensioner.  They belong to the pensioner as deferred payment for work done earlier in life. 

As I said earlier, if it is her personal choice to spend her time cleaning houses, she has nothing but my admiration.  But if it is a matter of necessity, of putting bread on her table because her community has not properly provided for her, it is a shame.  Not her shame, but a shame on her community. 

[Some Darn Xian]

Quote from: TENAC on June 29, 2008, 02:55:46 PM
Even our socialized medicine programs allow choice, far more choice than you find in Canada.  Anyone on Medicare or Medicaid has numerous physician choices available to them.  These programs are dedicated to the demographics they serve and rightly so.

Where do people get this strange idea that you cannot choose your own doctor in Canada?  I have the same freedom to choose my own doctor as any American.  More, in fact, as I don't need to worry if I can afford the best doctor.  I can afford every doctor.

From my research, Canadians generally can go to any doctor they want to, the only proviso is there may be a wait to get in.

In the US, the fallacy of the Medicaid/Care patient being able to swing into any doctor's office they want is a red herring put out there by those who have no concept of how the system works.

The restrictions are based partly on the program's restrictions, and partially on the willingness of the MD's to accept the lower government payments.

Also, anyone in an HMO knows that a physician is limited by the program. Often the choice to see a specialist is up to the PMD, who gets paid to keep the specialized care costs low. The only reason in Wisconsin a person can be seen in any ER without regard for the health insurance is because of legislation. Before 2001, ERs could refuse to admit patients with life threatening conditions because of the insurance, and insurance companies could refuse to pay the bills.

Yeah, I suppose the concept of the liberal socialist desire to have all people to be treated fairly and equally with regard to health care is a concept that would be contrary to what Jesus would recommend. I mean, hey, Christ only fed 5000+ with some fish and loaves of bread, but that was just because he was trying to teach them a lesson on self-sufficiency, right? It couldn't be that he was trying to teach us all that we need to help those around us, regardless of our belief that their need isn't really that big a deal.

And as for an elderly grandmother working to support herself? What the H!!!! is wrong with that picture of family life? Where is the extended family? Where is the support of the children and grandchildren? Oh, that's right! Struggling to support oneself in the old age is a sign of suffering and earns points for the afterlife!

Xian charity was only meant for the bible apparently.

[Some Darn Xian]

The current unemployment rate if 5.5%. My ex lost his job in March of 2001 and was not able to find another one until October of that year -- and the one he eventually did find was outside of his field and a pay cut.

Yes, I am aware of what the current unemployment rate is. And isn't it FANTASTIC that we can have such an incredibly low unemployment rate in what some fear mongering talking heads insist is a dire recession?

Ah, yes the red herrings of red herrings.   The unemployment rate fails to track anyone who is jobless past the first 6 months of unemployment benefits. After that, there person simply fails to appear in any significant tracking method.

The number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs created is truly the defining measure of how an economy is doing. Also, the classification of those jobs is essential in determining the long-term prognosis of the economy. Failure to include those numbers, there is really nothing that can be said of a simple number as to the total unemployed at a particular moment. If fails to address those who cannot find work past the pre-determined cutoff for the inclusion.

[Acumen]

Yeah, I suppose the concept of the liberal socialist desire to have all people to be treated fairly and equally with regard to health care is a concept that would be contrary to what Jesus would recommend. I mean, hey, Christ only fed 5000+ with some fish and loaves of bread, but that was just because he was trying to teach them a lesson on self-sufficiency, right? It couldn't be that he was trying to teach us all that we need to help those around us, regardless of our belief that their need isn't really that big a deal.

You know, if you're going to use Jesus to promote liberal propaganda, then you should be fair about it and show where the liberal paradigm differs from the Christian message.  For instance, I don't see liberals proselytizing to others, thus promoting Christianity within the government structure, do you?  Why not?  We know Jesus did such things.  I don't see liberals advocating traditional marriage.  I don't see liberals turning the other cheek.  If liberals don't sport the entire message of Christianity, then why do you feel the need to declare only one area of liberalism, which you erroneously believe Jesus promoted, as if liberals side with Jesus.

Xian charity was only meant for the bible apparently.

The problem arises when people try to apply biblical ethics to political philosophy.  Jesus never advocated that government should feed the poor and care for the elderly.  This as the responsibility of the community, who voluntarily sacrificed for each other.

[Some Darn Xian]

For instance, I don't see liberals proselytizing to others, thus promoting Christianity within the government structure, do you?  Why not?  We know Jesus did such things.

When and where did Jesus ever go into the government to try and take it over or in any way influence the rule of Rome? Where is this doctrine found?

As for proselytizing, there is such a thing as turning people off simply by trying to do this.

The actions of a person can be louder than any word ever spoken.

And why liberals don't do this? Whenever the subject of faith is raised by a liberal politician, the right wing fires off multiple attacks against the denomination, the church, the words spoken by a minister, whatever, in an attempt to maintain the control they have over the religiously minded.

Pat Robertson has spewed some pretty vile words in his career, yet he is still a darling to the right.

I don't see liberals advocating traditional marriage.

Is this really a question that you want to debate. In the terms of a government entity granting special tax breaks to a couple, it really cannot be selective in the terms of gender, because the concept of marriage is really a Biblical concept--not a constitutional one.

Further, the traditional marriage has been damaged more by Xians and others who support it by their actions of unfaithfulness, divorce, abuse, and any other deviation from "traditional" marriage. This runs on both sides of the political aisle.

The issue of marriage has been declared a state issue. After all, isn't the point of conservativism the rights of an individual? That was the whole point of the civil war. Liberals are trying to observe the limits of federal interference, and rightly so.

I don't see liberals turning the other cheek.

And nor do I see a great number of conservatives doing so either.

If liberals don't sport the entire message of Christianity, then why do you feel the need to declare only one area of liberalism, which you erroneously believe Jesus promoted, as if liberals side with Jesus.

The same charge is equally and rightfully leveled against the conservative right.

Do we wish to declare the simplest of diversions from the Xian concepts cannot be allowed if one is a liberal, but a conservative and pervert much more and be exonerated? I certainly do not.

The ideals of Christ, when you place it in terms of interaction with the world, was to be a socially concerned advocate for those who are without. This reaches from the spiritual to the physical. He feeds and heals and sends people off with the admonition to sin no more.

If you really want my take on the American condition, the Liberals are into the healing, and the conservatives are into the not sinning part. But neither side is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

The problem arises when people try to apply biblical ethics to political philosophy.  Jesus never advocated that government should feed the poor and care for the elderly.  This as the responsibility of the community, who voluntarily sacrificed for each other.

Again, Accumen, you must be distracted because this is one of the rare times I have found you in a direct contradiction within your own post.

You ask why there isn't a liberal program of proselytizing in government, then you state that the application of biblical ethics t political philosophy is a problem. The reason I would disagree with that is the fact that so many need so much help. There needs to be more help in achieving the social support than what a small area can deliver. Soon, the problems grow as people move into to take advantage of the help. That is precisely what happened during the 70s and 80s with welfare.

I will let this one slide. I know communicating at work is distracting, and I really don't believe your statement was intentional.

[Some Darn Xian]

It must be nice to be able to never have to worry about armed conflict, for ANY reason what so ever.

YOU'RE WELCOME!

For the record I served 4 years in the United States Navy in the 90's, YOU'RE WELCOME

My grandfather didn't see my dad until he was 2.5 years old during WWII. He was shipped out when there was still 3 months to go in utero.

My uncle served in Viet Nam for 18 months trying to get the guys mentally back to the world. He still is screwed up by that.

My best friend's dad just died from cancer due to Agent Orange in Nam.

I could go on.

I cite this as a point that your service is appreciated. I do not appreciate the tone of throwing it in someone's face as a catcha point or a as a means of disparaging those who choose not to enlist.

I am serving my country another way, one that lasts longer than 4 years. As is Accumen.

So, let's just say that we are all serving in our own way, and any disagreement in opinions isn't a slam or a slight against the service to the country that we have felt necessary to give.

And please, don't throw your service in someone's face like that. I cheapens the honor that is earned, and takes it down to a mark on a card......Something that I have never considered military service to be.

[Acumen]

For instance, I don't see liberals proselytizing to others, thus promoting Christianity within the government structure, do you?  Why not?  We know Jesus did such things.

When and where did Jesus ever go into the government to try and take it over or in any way influence the rule of Rome? Where is this doctrine found?

Jesus went to whomever was available, and Paul witnessed to government officials when given the opportunity.  There was no such liberal notion as the separation of church and state during the time of Christ.  Do you think Jesus would have supported an idea that limited the dissemination of the gospel message?  Don't misunderstand me.  My point isn't about the freedom of evangelization, but rather the hypocrisy of sanctifying liberal philosophies as if it was something Jesus would have supported.   

The actions of a person can be louder than any word ever spoken.

Red Herring.  Witnessing involves both speaking and acting. 

And why liberals don't do this? Whenever the subject of faith is raised by a liberal politician, the right wing fires off multiple attacks against the denomination, the church, the words spoken by a minister, whatever, in an attempt to maintain the control they have over the religiously minded.

Yes, both parties do this.  But don't pretend that the Democrat Party refuses to promote Christian ideas because they are obstructed by conservatives.  This issue of promoting the Christian message has nothing to do with Party politics.  Liberals don't accept the whole Christian message because it doesn't conform to their paradigm.  So, they pick the parts they like or the parts that make their position seem stronger, and they go with it.  And this brings us back to your statement about caring for the less fortunate.  Jesus would not accept the notion that people should to be forced into something they ought to do voluntarily.  In fact, Jesus criticized the Pharisees harshly for their visibly forced acts of piety and for compelling others to carry those same burdens.  I think liberals like to take the highroad when it involves helping those in need.  They can say care about minority groups, the poor, and the disenfranchised without having to lift a finger to help.  By forcing other all tax payers to spend their hard earned dollars on the shortcomings of the lower class, they can feel better about themselves without doing anything good.

Pat Robertson has spewed some pretty vile words in his career, yet he is still a darling to the right.

Red Herring.  I'm not defending the right, they share in the blame of party politics.

I don't see liberals advocating traditional marriage.

Is this really a question that you want to debate. In the terms of a government entity granting special tax breaks to a couple, it really cannot be selective in the terms of gender, because the concept of marriage is really a Biblical concept--not a constitutional one.

What does our Constitution have to do with the Christian message?  This is another Red Herring.

Further, the traditional marriage has been damaged more by Xians and others who support it by their actions of unfaithfulness, divorce, abuse, and any other deviation from "traditional" marriage. This runs on both sides of the political aisle.

Red Herring.  We're not discussing who is to blame over the desecration of traditional marriage, or what political party is involved. 

The issue of marriage has been declared a state issue. After all, isn't the point of conservativism the rights of an individual? That was the whole point of the civil war. Liberals are trying to observe the limits of federal interference, and rightly so.

All I asked is "do liberals support traditional marriage?"  And you went on a tirade about who has trampled traditional marriage and how it goes against conservatism.  These are different topics that could be argued out somewhere else.  My point was that liberals don't promote the Christian message, so why use the Christian message as a support for the liberal agenda?  And further more, if liberalism doesn't support the Christian message, then why are you so tied up in it?

I don't see liberals turning the other cheek.

And nor do I see a great number of conservatives doing so either.

But I wasn't talking about the glory of conservatives.  I wasn't implying that the Christian message promoted conservative notions, was I?  When you use the bible to sanctify liberalism, you essentially opened yourself up to this criticism.

If liberals don't sport the entire message of Christianity, then why do you feel the need to declare only one area of liberalism, which you erroneously believe Jesus promoted, as if liberals side with Jesus.

The same charge is equally and rightfully leveled against the conservative right.

But the religious right isn't discussing this matter with you, I am.  I refuse to defend the religious right.  I'm asking why YOU are personally using the scriptures to sanctify a liberal idea when you know that the Christian message doesn't support liberalism as a whole? 

If you really want my take on the American condition, the Liberals are into the healing, and the conservatives are into the not sinning part. But neither side is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

I think part of the problem is that the terms liberal and conservative are mighty big concepts that cover a wide array of people with differing beliefs.  Not all conservatives are Christian, so naturally the Christian message won't promote all conservatism.  But conservatism lines up behind the Christian message on more accounts than liberalism.  Conservative philosophy is on the Christian side of abortion, gay marriage, taking responsibility for one's sins, spreading the gospel message without government constraints, prayer in schools, abstinence in schools, and on other such issues. 

Liberalism, on the other hand, boasts about its concern for the oppressed as more a congruent philosophy with Christian teachings, but it misses the point that Christian teachings don't sponsor governmental roles in charity.  Real bragging rights would be if liberals had a better record of private participation in charity, which includes donations.  But they don't.  As a whole, conservatives out give liberals in terms of charity donations.  This, in my opinion, is a black eye on liberalism for not practicing what they preach.

The problem arises when people try to apply biblical ethics to political philosophy.  Jesus never advocated that government should feed the poor and care for the elderly.  This as the responsibility of the community, who voluntarily sacrificed for each other.

Again, Accumen, you must be distracted because this is one of the rare times I have found you in a direct contradiction within your own post.

You ask why there isn't a liberal program of proselytizing in government, then you state that the application of biblical ethics t political philosophy is a problem. The reason I would disagree with that is the fact that so many need so much help. There needs to be more help in achieving the social support than what a small area can deliver. Soon, the problems grow as people move into to take advantage of the help. That is precisely what happened during the 70s and 80s with welfare.

I will let this one slide. I know communicating at work is distracting, and I really don't believe your statement was intentional.

Well, thanks for letting it slide.   

But it wasn't a contradiction.  I was talking about liberals proselytizing in government positions, not through the government.  Jesus and Paul would witness to anyone who was available, and there was no "government" clause that obstructed them in doing such.  My criticism of applying biblical standards to government is real and salient.  Governments cannot act according to Christian principles and survive.  One perfect example is our foreign policy.  What would happen to our nation if we practiced turning the other cheek to terrorism?  What would happen if we decided to apply the biblical standard of helping those in need?  Well, we would start by opening our border, thus losing a big front on national security.  We would spend countless dollars trying to stop global poverty meanwhile neglecting issues on a domestic front.  We would eliminate our military entirely because murder is wrong and un-Christian.  And before you know it, the U.S. would cease to exist as a great nation.  It's a tricky business trying to apply biblical principles to governments.