How did people live in America before Medicare and Medicaid came around, Squirly?  Don't tell me they were dying in the streets or that we had an unstable society before LBJ implemented his "Great Society."




I don't understand your point.  Why do you think people with mental disorders or cancer could not receive treatment under privatized health care?




Then perhaps you could originate some ideas on how to do this?  How do you compel someone to assume responsibility when the don't have to sport the bill?  How do you make someone utilize their insurance benefits with thrift-mindedness and efficiency when it doesn't cost them a red penny to receive over-assessment and over-treatment?  I would love to hear how such a system might work effectively.




Attitude?  Stating an observation that all field paramedics will confirm is now seen as an attitude?  I'll tell you what friend, go do some ride-alongs with an ambulance in the inner city for a few months, then you can lecture me about my attitude.  Working in the controlled environment at a hospital doesn't certify you to correct my field observations. 




I'm talking about all sectors of our patient clientèle.  Again, when you start walking into the homes I enter daily, then you can speculate about my preformed judgments.  I know poverty when I see it. 

And yes, we have patients that must call us, that need us, that have no other way but accept emergency transport, but unfortunately these patients are rare.  On average, if we receive 15 call in a given day, about 2-5 of them will be legitimate emergencies like car accidents, diabetic reactions, asthma attacks, kidney stones, domestic abuse, and so on.  We know they are real because the tests show us they are real.  But when we see the same patients time and time again, or when we have patients pretend to pass out, pretend to have labor contractions, or pretend to have a breathing problem, we've been around long enough in the field of diagnostics to figure these things out.

And the fact you don't see it probably depends upon what hospital you're employed at, what department you work in, or what job function you have.




Where are these streets you're talking about?  Is there an epidemic somewhere I don't know about?

You never answered my question about the citizens of Mexico.  Should we provide the citizens of Mexico with government subsidized health care since they also have people with wide-ranging problems, people that die in the streets, people who have cancer who cannot receive treatment?  After all, if we offer health care services to them, they will live far better lives due to these programs with a minimum of assistance.




Privatization doesn't mean lack of coverage for people who pay for insurance, Squirly.  Both of my parents were diagnosed with cancer; they both had privatized insurance; and they both received treatment fully covered by their primary insurance for the entire duration of their treatments.  You're exaggerating the costs of a private insurance sector.




Umm . . . that's against the law.  If they call, we haul.  That's the slogan.  If they call and want treatment, but we leave them, then we lose our medical licenses for patient abandonment.  And then after losing our medical licenses and our jobs, the city that employed us will receive a big fat lawsuit. 




Now we're forcing people to buy coverage?  That sounds sort of fascist.  What happened to our civil liberties not to have government infringe on our rights to resist medical treatment?




That's a splendid idea.  Ask him/her what the ratio is between real and not-so-real emergencies.




Good luck with that.  Such reforms in legislation would be followed with countless lawsuits.  It's a tricky business turning down patients.  In the city I work, only doctors can refuse to treat patients, and this rarely happens due to fear of lawsuits.  I would talk in more specifics, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate.




Yes, that is a risk.  Even the patient who calls us 40 times in a month might finally have a real emergency, and that is something we paramedics always try to remind ourselves.  Sometimes we are wrong.  I look at it this way - if I know a patient is faking an illness, instead of getting angry that this patient is possibly endangering another citizen by tying us up on a bogus call, I look at it as an opportunity to practice my skills and improve my patient treatment.  By viewing it this way, I convince myself I'm not wasting my time because I'm becoming a better health care provider while doing my city a real service at the same time.  So, the boy who calls wolf doesn't really apply to me when I apply this method of treatment. 




Then it's beyond me that you don't see it.  How many patients leave the hospital after extensive diagnostics and nothing is found?  How many times do you see the same people?  How many drug seekers have you run into?  How about psych patients?  I could go on and on.



I don't recall this happening before LBJ implemented his "Great Society."

Of course we "pick and choose" as we should rightly do, imo.  I don't think blind obedience to any document is the best way to go, no matter how much we may cherish that document.  And I said as such as a Christian, as a theistic Jew, and now as a non-theistic Jew.  On top of that, times change and we need to look at how we may respond to changes in the context of various events and conditions.           


 

Aren't you aware of the very significant amount of research that is financed one way or another by the U.S. government, including universities?  Are you aware of the tax breaks, which I agree with btw, for drug companies whereas they can deduct much of their research expenses?  Yes, competition and free market enterprise has very much helped, but there's much more involved.






When SW referred to your economic position as being "cold and calloused", he took the words out of my mouth.  Listen, acumen, I'm 63 years of age and I've seen many people crash and burn through no fault of their own.  As far as charity is concerned, would charity help with the autistic adult who lived across the street from me downstate who had to be institutionalized?  Would charity have helped with my father who had Alzheimer's, whereas we took care of him until he began to get violent?  Fortunately, our tax paying dollars helped to fund his care at the VA.

One thing you learn in life is just how much of our well-being hangs by a thread.  Many people do not have health care insurance and/or may very low income, so they don't really matter?  An economic system is supposed to serve people and not have people serving the economic system, and what you have done is to accentuate the latter. 

If you want to gravitate towards unbridled capitalism similar to what existed in 1776, let me suggest that go up to your boss tomorrow, tell him you no longer want any insurance, pension, or benefits, or any vacation time.  Then go to the Fed and tell them you are not interested in collecting Social Security or any other federally sponsored program.  Then go to your local school district and tell them you will pay cash for your kids' education.  Then go to the nearest hospital and tell them that they are not to work on you at all for any reason unless you pay cash.  Oh, btw, speaking of cash, your employment position, like mine, would have been considered "working-class" back then, so you'd barely be able to squeek out having much saved.

You may want to go back to the 1700's, but I'll take the 21st century thank you.


 



Not true, but I'm running out of time.













How is that a conservative issue?




Again, how are these conservative issues?
[/quote]

Because they were being used to take personal and family autonomy away.  The first puts the government in the position of teaching specific religious doctrines, whereas the 2nd takes family choice away and puts it into the hands of politicians.  These very much are conservative issues.

Blind obedience is one thing, but selectively choosing what parts of the OT are palatable today as Jewish values is a little convenient during debate, especially as it serves to promote liberal values.
        


Okay, not sure if I see your point.  There is no question that the free market is the most significant force behind medical research, and that is my point.




Since you are willing to assume Squirly's rhetoric about conservative positions being cold and callous while neglecting the point that it's very practical, then perhaps you are also willing to answer the question about whether we should also subsidize health care for the most destitute citizens of Mexico. 

Mexican citizens also "crash and burn" due to no fault of their own.  Mexican citizens also have diseases such as autism and Alzheimer's.  Do you think our tax paying dollars should help fund their care as well?  If not, then perhaps we are all cold and callous because citizens of Mexico are just as human as citizens of the U.S., and if health care is a human right, there is no justification for a "wealthy nation" like ours' to refuse "universal health care" to Mexico.  After all, you told me that increasing taxes have not been shown to stunt economic growth, so perhaps we could take on the burden of Mexico and run an efficient economy at the same time?




Well, that's a handy little argument you got there.  That's like passing a law that allows the free distribution of addictive drugs on the market, then criticizing those who think such a law shouldn't have been passed by underscoring the fact that revoking such a law would cause serious social unrest and political mayhem due to societal addiction.

Just like drugs, social programs like welfare and government insurance are addictive because people learn to depend upon them and change their way of life to incorporate them.  And just like addictive drugs, once such programs a part of the fabric of society, it becomes quite difficult to undo it without serious ramifications.  No, I do not want to revert to the 1700s.  Our society couldn't tolerate such changes, but I think we need to seriously evaluate what direction our government is moving in terms of social programs, and what sort of cycle of dependence it is creating.

You will have to pardon my lack of civility on issues like this.  I seriously believe if you saw what I see on a daily basis (doing what I do for a living), it may not reverse your position, but it would certainly make you pause about what such programs are doing to our society.  Every day, I see people who are smart, capable, and healthy enough to work and teach their children the value of a good work ethic.  Instead, we see people who would rather accept their government checks that literally supports all of their children and their drug habits.  I see homes that have flat screen TVs in the living room, expensive Nike or Reebok's on their feet, but no food in the fridge.  I see homes where small children crawling around with filthy diapers at 2 A.M., but parents with enough money to buy gold jewelry and shiny rims for their cars.  I see a lot more bad choices than I see victims of circumstance. 


 

I'm running into a time problem, so I'm going to have to be very brief-- again.

Acumen, what you are proposing as your economic model at least somewhat parallels Locke's approach.  Personally, I have mixed feelings about Locke.  On one hand, he was interested in breaking away from totalitarian rule (monarchies) and away from forced religion.  That I like.  But his solutions were lassez-fair capitalism matched with a separation of church and state.  That I have problems with, as most Christians then and now also have.  Let me give you Rousseau's very angry response to Locke even though they lived during different time periods.

Rousseau considered Locke's ideas as being extremely dangerous and immoral for two main reasons:

1.if there's a separation of church and state, what or who are going to keep the state from slipping into doing things in an immoral way?

2.if there's no safety net to help the disadvantaged, doesn't this violate Jesus' and Christianities teaching on helping the disadvantaged?

As far as the first is concerned, Locke never dealt with this question, so it's difficult for us to say how he may have responded to Rouseau's charges.  Locke was not a philosopher (he was a doctor), so we maybe have to pardon his incompleteness at times.  But, admitedly, Rousseau brings up a good point, does he not?

As far as the second is concerned, the church had long contended that the poor HAD to be helped as much as possible, and that this must be done through both legal and charitable means.  Even under the old feudal system, nobles had an obligation to take care of their serfs and even slaves if needed.  Rousseau, therefore, was appalled that Locke would be so inconsiderate of the needy whereas they would be subject to the hit and miss approach that charity would or would not provide.  And what happens to charities during rough economic times?  They tend to dry up (just ask the American Red Cross about that as they announced last month that there's been a decline in charitable giving).

Did the U.S., which first built it's economy on the Locke model, keep it?  No.  Very gradually we walked away from it because way too many problems began to occur that even a basic review of our history clearly indicates.  Where it all came to head ocurred during the Great Depression.

During that time, charities proved to be incapable of handling the economic carnage that took place.  My father was very much affected by this and it left scars on his personality that he carried with him the rest of his life. 

But the "the messiah" came.  I'm referring to John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes was so radical that his ideas were soundly rejected at first.  Eugene Debs bought Keynes ideas and got promptly put in jail becuase he was considered too radical.  What Keynes taught in part was that it would be better to have a man dig a hole and fill it up again and get paid for it even if the payment comes from taxes than to just sit home out of work with no money or pride.  A person who makes no money doesn't buy, and if not too many people are buying it can further take us down the path of recession/depression.  Keynes felt it would be better to temporarily unbalance the budget, create programs to get people back working, and lift the economy in that manner if it couldn't be handled by the private sector.  Along with this, he taught it was far better to have people helped through government intervention along with charity whereas people are taken care of one way or another.   

During the depression, our government got desparate, and on the scene as President came FDR, who looked into Keynesian economics and bought it.  Starting in the 1930's, American and many other countries began to flourish because of Keynesian economics.

The idea that these programs somehow stifles our economy violates even basic understand as to how Economics 101 works.  If these programs are supposedly so inefficient, then explain how the Scandinavian countries are doing so well as they run a mixture of mostly capitalism with relatively high amounts of social programs.  How can you explain the economic growth of China, which economists now are predicting will likely pass us up within the next 10 years.  Again, what they have done is to increase their level of capitalism while also having an increasing level of social programs. 

The point becomes that we can both use free enterprise AND social programs to help the needy without destroying our economy.  Yes, it's a balancing act at times and sometimes some very tough decisions have to be made.

Oops, gotta go.     

What is a healthy "mix" of health care,

Health care workers and researchers do not work for the government; capitalism to preserve the entrepreneurial spirit that encourages innovation and hard work . 

Health insurance available to all regardless of whether it's offered at their work or their pre-existing conditions. It is portable and affordable; socialism to extend the benefits to all citizens. A mix


food,

Food privately grown, harvested, and sold: capitalism
Food stamps and subsidies for the needy. No one goes hungry: socialism. A mix


and shelter for our citizens?

Shelter privately built and owned: capitalism
Government backed guarantees already in place (and in trouble) and subsidized housing for the poor and elderly, often the same the people: socialism. A mix



Liberals don't know where the balance is.  They keep pushing and pushing because that's what they do.

Some liberals.

And conservatives keep resisting and resisting,

by cutting and cutting the social programs that truly affect the quality of the lives of the poor and elderly.

Quote
Oh, I know that they are often tweedle dum and tweedle dee. But which political party would cut food stamps, medicare, prevent medicare from negotiating with drug companies, cut VA benefits, be against family leave, cut daycare support, cut head start?


My party would, as they should (except for the VA).

And that's why I vote as a Democrat. They are more likely to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and protect the powerless in society. You wanted to know why more Jews vote Democrat than Republican. You just got your answer. We know that is the prescription for life as told to us at Sinai. Isn't that the prescription you were told by Jesus. Do your really think that Jesus would want your party to cut health benefits, food stamps, day care? You think Jesus would be a Republican?

 And I readily admit this as any conservative should.  However, let's not play the game by pretending that the liberal philosophy is better because it's based upon some sort of moral virtue because it's not. 

The practitioners may not motivated by morality, but at least they start out with the perfect idea and fall short. The cutters of health benefits, food stamps, head start, don't even start with the ideal.


If moral virtue were the engine behind liberal beliefs, ...

You think there is any morality in not extending life and health to all? You think that you are making the moral choice when you are more concerned about your taxes than people's ability to eat?


Not at the price of our freedom. 

What freedom do you lose when you extend health care to all? The freedom to keep more money in your pocket? WWJD.


Why should the lack of responsibility by the few require more responsibility from the many?

What lack of responsibility was there by the person who is dying from cancer but could be saved by a bone marrow transplant, that he couldn't afford it?

Why should those of us who work hard and sacrifice large parts of lives surviving and teaching their youngsters to survive be penalized by those who experienced in playing game of government appeasement?

Because many of the "irresponsible " people who are living lives of desperation worked and sacrificed and taught their youngsters just as you do, but for whatever reason find themselves bankrupted by the health care system.

Every day I see those very people who don't take responsibility, don't work, and don't instill such virtues in their children.  If mommy didn't have to work, then why do I?

And every day I see people who have worked all their lives but have the bad luck of falling ill and not able to afford the medicines and hospitalizations that could save their lives.

And of course, there is the issue of government controlling health care decision that ought to be controlled by doctors and their patients, but that is a whole other issue.

And the challenge will be to preserve the best of both worlds. And a challenge it will be, but not if we assume that those who suffer from the lack of the reforms deserve it because they didn't work as hard, didn't take responsibility, or didn't teach their children the virtues of self-reliance.

I will vote for the party that looks to extend the benefits of this great society to "the least of these" rather than worry about how much money it leaves in the pockets of everyone else.

If it's not a human right, then what compelling reason is there to institute it?  It's not an efficient system by any means - in fact, it literally flushes money down the toilet due to fraudulent claims, over-treatment, and government discretion.





First, people don't pay ridiculous premiums for pre-existing conditions if they have insurance before those conditions emerge.  If they don't have insurance when they are healthy, then what are they waiting for?  It is nobody's fault but their own for taking unnecessary risks while they are deemed healthy, nor is it anybody else's fault that they waited for a health condition before trying to get health insurance.  Again, bad choices.

Second, coverage doesn't go up because of age if one already has the insurance.  My grandparents, for instance, manage their lives prudently.  They attained full insurance coverage before the age of retirement and before any health conditions emerged.  They are still paying a modest premium for their insurance because of good choices.  If they had relied on Medicare, they would have serious out-of-pocket costs due to partial coverage.  Their private insurance company doesn't do this, and it provides the highest level of care unlike Medicare.  BTW, insurance companies cannot hike up costs due to a new onset illness or age, it's against the law.