Is anyone talking about health care using basic logic?

[pentaxshooter]

For which the provider is being compensated. People are not being shanghai'd and forced into medical school, construction, or enviornmental engineering against their will. This is not servitude. It is employment. A voluntary choice of vocation by the parties involved.

Or do you believe all employment to be servitude?

Maybe I wasn't clear, (I think I was, but alas) but what I meant was that it relies on the productive capacities of individuals creating wealth that will eventually be stolen/taxed/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it in order to pay for said service. That is the action it requires on the behalf of other individuals for it to be a "right".

Good article on positive rights.

Ok. Where is all of this "involuntary" servitude happening he is talking about? Last I checked, its illegal under the 13th Amendment and no one here (or in Canada for that matter) is forced into any job they don't want to do.

And people wonder why Paul is considered a whackjob by some.

See above.

just like "Do either of you have anything to useful to say?"

The sign of no argument.

except when you explain why his poorly thought out ideas are poorly thought out he whines that "you don't have anything useful to say"

You keep saying my ideas are not thoroughly thought out but have yet to explain, even once, how this is so.

He still hasn't responded to the fact that those people in servitude are actually employed and being compensated for their work.

That was not the point I was making. See my first reply.

The privileged-angry-white-male email chain with talking points on that topic hasn't been distributed yet.

Oh, what a zinger! You've been saving that one for a while, I'll assume?

Don't be a wise arse with me, Pentax. I'm one of the few people that actually likes you around here.

Fair enough. I actually didn't really see who I was replying to. I get confused as hell on Tapatalk sometimes

[Uberhare]

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.

[rsj0714]

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.

So just because a law is passed these freeloaders will all of a sudden begin paying? If they don't pay they get 700+ dollars taken from their taxes? How exactly is this mandate going to work without aggressively digging into peoples pockets?

I would like each question answered individually and factually please. Thanks.

[Mooosman]

No thanks to Death Panels, a mandatory RFID chip implant, 1/6 take over of the economy by government....

Yeah, I'm sure they were able to sneak that one into the most high profile legislation in years...

[20DYNAMITE07]

Fair enough. I actually didn't really see who I was replying to. I get confused as hell on Tapatalk sometimes

[.LSinLV.]

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.

[Internal Combustion]

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.

[rsj0714]

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.

Yep

[Sporin]

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"

[pknopp]

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 group /, with similar ideals. Not so much in the US. Hard to do blanket rules here.

There are many things that politicians simply do not want to face head on and this is indeed one of them.

[pknopp]

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"

Screw David Frum and everyone like him that are only interested in the politics of this discussion.

[Jader Pack]

Rights to "health care", food, water, shelter, etc, are all dependent on the production of goods and services by others. Things must be created by individuals before the "right" can be fulfilled for others. This is nothing more than servitude under the guise of the "public" good. Positive rights posit that the labor/production of others is the property of the common. I don't believe involuntary servitude should play any place in modern society.

There is no involuntary servitude involved. No one is forced into being a doctor or nurse or other health care practitioner. They're incentivized into such work with high salaries. Health care being a right means that if there were only one doctor in all of Canada, access to him would be on a first-come, first-serve basis modified on the basis of urgency of need. That's all.

This involuntary servitude nonsense is completely divorced from reality.

[Jader Pack]

On top of the abuse, Germany has 81 million people - and we have over 300 million. A comprehensive system that could cover 300 million people and be fair about it? We have a lot of work still to do. Countries have systems that work for them - but in a nation as large and diverse (economically) as ours - we need something unique for the US.

What differentiates the US and Canada such that our system would not scale up?

[Jader Pack]

These 'systems' don't scale linearly. Your simplistic take on it isn't fair.

Since you're speaking so matter-of-factly, I trust you have an example of such a failure to scale?

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?

[pentaxshooter]

There is no involuntary servitude involved. No one is forced into being a doctor or nurse or other health care practitioner. They're incentivized into such work with high salaries. Health care being a right means that if there were only one doctor in all of Canada, access to him would be on a first-come, first-serve basis modified on the basis of urgency of need. That's all.

This involuntary servitude nonsense is completely divorced from reality.

You might want to go back and read my other post where I further clarified. I don't see how it is you guys are interpreting what I said in this way, but apparently you are.

[Jader Pack]

Did you hear that noise? It was the sound of the poiny i was making going right over your head.

Re-read what I said and in the context it was written, please

No, they addressed it head-on. There is no "involuntary servitude" in our system in which access to health care is a right. None. Not even a single person. Not now, not never.

That you're sticking to your guns on that one shows me how warped your understanding of how our system works is.

[Jader Pack]

it's dead. thank god. which means Obama will be a lame duck if he gets re-elected. his Presidency has been an utter failure.

No thanks to Death Panels, a mandatory RFID chip implant, 1/6 take over of the economy by government....

we've all seen the level of quality of government services - the DMV, IRS, etc.....they're all beauracracies, that never sustain themselves.

You have a 2500 page law that NOBODY in government has read in its entirety "We have to pass it to see what's in it" -Pelosi-

Does healthcare need some work? Yes. Is this the solution? Nope. I do not want anymore socialism.

This is a President who has shunned and juked around the Constitution whenever he feels like it.

It's pretty much a win for Conservatives no matter how you cut it - it probably is dead. If it survives it'll probably kill Obama's election b/c 60-70% of the country doesn't want it.

Shall I also add you to the list of people who have zero understanding whatsoever of how Canada's "socialized" health care works? Or were you just joking?

[Jader Pack]

Have you actually talked to anyone in Canada? I have and it was a business owner in Toronto. Wealthy canadians come HERE b/c 1. there's no epic line to get the care they need 2. it's better and more innovative and technologically advanced.

0.015% of Canadians make a trip to the US expressly for the health care system. The idea that our system has us fleeing to the US like East Germans fled to West Germany is a canard.

When you give everyone a benefit the quality always goes down.

Yet our (Canada's) system is cheaper and more effective than yours. Weird.

The minute you give everyone healthcare they will go the doctor for every little issue, colds, cuts and bruises, the resources will be tapped.

This fear does not materialize. There are non-monetary costs to going to the doctor (it's unpleasant and takes time). Further, the rationing and sky high wait times are for exactly this sort of person. If you insist on emergency treatment for a common cold, you'll wait all day because you don't need a doctor.

keep giving up your rights, government likes taking them away.

I don't see our system as "giving up my rights." I see it as granting me another right you don't have: the right to be healthy (i.e., access to more than just emergency treatment) no matter who I am, how much money I have, or what coverage I have.

[pentaxshooter]

No, they addressed it head-on. There is no "involuntary servitude" in our system in which access to health care is a right. None. Not even a single person. Not now, not never.

That you're sticking to your guns on that one shows me how warped your understanding of how our system works is.

How is your health care system funded?*


*I know the answer. And behind it, is a gun.

[Jader Pack]

I have no idea what RFID chips are but "death panels" are inevitable if we are to have universal coverage. There is simply no way we can pay for everything for everyone. There will have to be decisions made where someone says "no".

They do exist. They aren't called "death panels," but I wish they were because it's a rad name. They also play absolutely no role in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases. The ONLY time they come into play is when someone wants an expensive procedure but will certainly die anyways (the question of whether to continue treatment or conserve resources and go on palliative care).

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.

[chrismkay3]

from Canada.

jader, stop trying to justify our system to the americans. i tried while i lived there, they do not understand.

[Jader Pack]

Maybe I wasn't clear, (I think I was, but alas) but what I meant was that it relies on the productive capacities of individuals creating wealth that will eventually be stolen/taxed/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it in order to pay for said service. That is the action it requires on the behalf of other individuals for it to be a "right".

Ah, right. So this isn't a complaint about universal health care so much as it is a complaint about how every single government in the entire world works and pays for things.

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?

[A.Wilder]

he keeps harping on the taxes = theft.

and hasn't once spoken on the points i made that debunk this false idea.

[pentaxshooter]

Ah, right. So this isn't a complaint about universal health care so much as it is a complaint about how every single government in the entire world works and pays for things.

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?

I've answered every single last concern in recent days about my viewpoints. If I have missed any, please do bring them to my attention.

he keeps harping on the taxes = theft.

and hasn't once spoken on the points i made that debunk this false idea.

You have been saying this all day and I've yet to see these points that "debunk" what I am saying. All I have seen is useless snide remarks and pictures being posted.

[A.Wilder]

You have been saying this all day and I've yet to see these points that "debunk" what I am saying. All I have seen is useless snide remarks and pictures being posted.

I guess you have a literacy problem.

you're the only one who had a problem comprehending my posts.

[pentaxshooter]

I guess you have a literacy problem.

Quit being an ass and show them to me, then. We can take this over to the politics thread, if you would like.

[zukiphile]

Maybe I wasn't clear, (I think I was, but alas) but what I meant was that it relies on the productive capacities of individuals creating wealth that will eventually be stolen/taxed/whatever-you'd-like-to-call-it in order to pay for said service. That is the action it requires on the behalf of other individuals for it to be a "right".

This is pretty clear. A right to a consumer service carries with it a corresponding obligation to provide that service.

There is no involuntary servitude involved. No one is forced into being a doctor or nurse or other health care practitioner. They're incentivized into such work with high salaries. Health care being a right means that if there were only one doctor in all of Canada, access to him would be on a first-come, first-serve basis modified on the basis of urgency of need. That's all.

This involuntary servitude nonsense is completely divorced from reality.

And it also isn't what he described.

Ah, right. So this isn't a complaint about universal health care so much as it is a complaint about how every single government in the entire world works and pays for things.

And applying it for provision of a consumer service, not an inherently governmental. Did you really miss that?

Why would you argue against an idea you didn't understand?

[A.Wilder]

Quit being an ass and show them to me, then. We can take this over to the politics thread, if you would like.

it's all there. please, make a comment that is "useful" and not a straw man argument about the gov remodeling your home. hahahahahaha

I'm the one being an ass! hahahahahaha

[pentaxshooter]

it's all there. please, make a comment that is "useful" and not a straw man argument about the gov remodeling your home. hahahahahaha

I'm the one being an ass! hahahahahaha

Are you ok?

You might want to go back and read, because, as I have already stated once before, my analogy dealing with home renovation had NOTHING to do with the government. Because you can't understand simple comparisons is not my problem.

[Jader Pack]

This is pretty clear. A right to a consumer service carries with it a corresponding obligation to provide that service.

No it doesn't. See: Canada.

And it also isn't what he described.

Yeah, thanks. We got to the bottom of that already.

And applying it for provision of a consumer service, not an inherently governmental. Did you really miss that?

Why would you argue against an idea you didn't understand?

It's no different than using taxes for any other purpose. Since taxes aren't theft for those purposes, they're not theft for this purpose.

[zukiphile]

it's all there. ..... hahahahahaha

.... hahahahahaha

Pentax grants you greater courtesy than you are due.

[A.Wilder]

Are you ok?

You might want to go back and read, because, as I have already stated once before, my analogy dealing with home renovation had NOTHING to do with the government. Because you can't understand simple comparisons is not my problem.

that's freaking hilarious.

[pentaxshooter]

It's no different than using taxes for any other purpose. Since taxes aren't theft for those purposes, they're not theft for this purpose.

You can accept it as necessary theft, but it is theft nonetheless.

that's freaking hilarious.

[Doedrums]

Since you're speaking so matter-of-factly, I trust you have an example of such a failure to scale?

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?

Our Medicaid system is administered by the states. I have a relative, my mother, that is a Medicaid eligibility worker and through her I've seen that the entire system is a nightmare. I do not want that level of bureaucracy applied to all people. Unless you have dealt with it directly, you cannot understand. I have helped her update her policy manuals and the system is insane. It takes a minimum of 45 days to get approved for Medicaid, due to the case load and the built in complexity of the bureaucracy. Now, multiply that times 300+ million people and you have a recipe for disaster.

[zukiphile]

No it doesn't. See: Canada.

This isn't about Canada.

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.

It's no different than using taxes for any other purpose.

Using taxes for consumer services differs from using them for inherently governmental functions in that inherently governmental functions aren't available in the marketplace, but are reserved to sovereigns.

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.