Good article on positive rights.
Good article on positive rights.
My wife works as a charge nurse in local ER dept. It's sobering to learn about the number of uninsured people who visit the ER but have zero intention on paying for it. She calls them the "freeloaders". They'll come in for even the smallest issues, knowing they won't have to pay for a thing. Most tend to be immigrants or of low income status. A lot are on a first-name basis with the staff. It's sad and I'm stuck having to pay for the freeloaders.
The lion does not concern himself with the opinion of the sheep.
I would like each question answered individually and factually please. Thanks.
the greatest issue with universal healthcare in this country is simple: limited resources in respect to -
- available medical staffing
- available funding for care
- management of above resources
if we do not accept that this coverage is to be the end-all, be-all for healthcare, as well as creating some form of tort-reform, the universal healthcare model will NOT work.
this is not political, this is not idealogical, this is not nay-sayer; it's fact.
Dr's are retiring faster than they are being replaced, in a system that is currently seriously understaffed for physicians. add to this, the costs of getting a degree, and having to payback huge loans on top of low pay for group-type physicans, very few in the modern day are choosing this vocation.
worse, the liability for physicians is causing MANY to retire early as they are not wanting to carry the risk. additional costs assoicated with this risk have driven up the costs of medical care and diminished available resources (labs, hospitals, diagnositc, etc).
even if we come up with a way to manage the risk and can get enough physicians, how do we pay for this system? when do we decide to not transplant a heart into a 95 year old man, because we'd rather save the 10 year old girl?? the current system creates a cast for the haves and have nots to mitigate this.....once this is gone, how do we decide on who gets what, when at at what cost (alternative as well as financial)?
too many questions that have YET to be delt with other than "insure everyone".
we can't and shouldn't.
As a physician, the only thing I can say is this country is f*cked regardless of health care/no health care if PERSONAL HEALTH HAS TO BE INCENTIVIZED. America by and large (emphasis on the latter) just wants a pill. They want a magic pill and they think that 4$ is too much to pay for it.
But outside that, suits in Washington have no right to tell me what to do. Yet they will. I'm the expert but I have no say in this. This assumption of power scares me. Health care works in other countries, sadly, because there are homogenous people groups, with similar ideals. Not so much in the US. Hard to do blanket rules here.
Interesting take on what this means to the GOP if the SC doesn't kill ACA...
"@thedailybeast: Supreme Court Justices won't save GOP from itself on #Obamacare says @DavidFrum http://t.co/tJCGFxOG #aca"
Please help me win a new, amazing Ukulele! Vote for my Pete Seeger inspired image in HMS's Photo Contest. CLICK HERE.
This involuntary servitude nonsense is completely divorced from reality.
Our system is remarkably simple and light on bureaucracy. The basic premise is that the provinces set the rate for services, then compensate all private and public institutions for services rendered. Each province basically manages its own system. What about this system breaks down when there are more provinces/states?
That you're sticking to your guns on that one shows me how warped your understanding of how our system works is.
They've made highly publicized mistakes, but their existence is a necessary evil of a system like ours. They're nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be.
You completely failed to answer any of my (and others') concerns about your fantasy 0 taxes 100% market system, so it's surprising to see you trotting it out again. How do you advocate an idea you don't understand?
Why would you argue against an idea you didn't understand?
If a person has a right to X, and X must be created through another's effort, then someone has an obligation to create X, or the right to X is illusory.
It's what the words mean.
The reference to Canada doesn't help you on this point. The obligation to pay a portion of one's productivity to pay for the right isn't voluntary. It is involuntary, and compelled under the threat of force by the state.
It isn't a tough line of reasoning to follow.
Now, you might very much like providing some consumer services through government payment, and you may not agree with Pentax on a number of issues even as I do not. That doesn't mean the differences described are non-existent, or that you need to pretend to condescend to Pentax, suggesting that he doesn't understand his own ideas, simply because you do not share them.