Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come liberals' justification for public health care revolves around emotional appeals like: "you would rather people die in the streets?"
With 80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage, I am not sure that people literally dying in the streets is a rampant problem.
If you'd like to come up with a better solution for why I should trust the Federal Government, the most inept organization in the US, to control my health care, then I'm all ears.
How come liberal's justification for public health care revolves around emotional appeals like: "you would rather people die in the streets?"
With 80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage, I am not sure that people literally dying in the streets is a rampant problem.
If you'd like to come up with a better solution for why I should trust the Federal Government, the most inept organization in the US, to control my health care, then I'm all ears.
No, it doesn't. Your post is what's called a strawman argument -- assert something absurd that you say the other side believes in. The only problem is that the assertion is false.
Instead, liberal views on health care revolve around basic facts. Every other modern industrial country has a universal system that covers all, at half the cost of our system with better overall results.
While you say that "80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage," that also includes seniors that have Medicare (psst, a gov't program) and Medicaid for the poor and S-Chips for children, which are all under attack by the right-wing.
The Census Bureau just released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.
The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for infant mortality rate[105] and 46th for total life expectancy.[106] A study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations.[107] For example, the United States was listed as 37th for life expectancy and 41st in low birth weight.[108]
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the United States ranked poorly in terms of Years of potential life lost (YPLL), a statistical measure of years of life lost under the age of 70 that were amenable to being saved by health care. Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details.
Recent studies find growing gaps in life expectancy based on income and geography. In 2008, a government-sponsored study found that life expectancy declined from 1983 to 1999 for women in 180 counties, and for men in 11 counties, with most of the life expectancy declines occurring the Deep South, Appalachia, along the Mississippi River, in the Southern Plains and in Texas. The gap is growing between rich and poor and by educational level, but narrowing between men and women and by race.[109] Another study found that the mortality gap between the well-educated and the poorly educated widened significantly between 1993 and 2001 for adults ages 25 through 64; the authors speculated that risk factors such as smoking, obesity and high blood pressure may lie behind these disparities.[110]
If one really, really wanted to improve health care, reduce costs and lower government expenses, you'd advocate a universal system based upon one of the better European models, instead of burying one's head in ideological dogma.
Government is the problem, not the solution to health care.
FIRST POINT: There is no "right" to healthcare if government requires permission (licensing) and criminalizes the unlicensed practice.
SECOND POINT: Greed was behind the push for licensing, not incompetence. Licensing created scarcity and boosted income of physicians.
THIRD POINT: Allopathic medicine was accorded the monopoly over dispensing potent medicines, and other schools of medicine were driven out or downgraded as "quackery".
FOURTH POINT: Inflated costs are directly attributed to government - abusive tort laws, monetary debasement, taxation, not to forget to mention that you cannot buy medicine without permission (prescription) bought from a government licensed person. And you can only buy it from another government licensed person, who buys his stock from other licensed entities.
If you wish UNIVERSAL and affordable health care, you must get the government out of the way, and let the free market operate.
Government is the problem, not the solution to health care.
FIRST POINT: There is no "right" to healthcare if government requires permission (licensing) and criminalizes the unlicensed practice.
SECOND POINT: Greed was behind the push for licensing, not incompetence. Licensing created scarcity and boosted income of physicians.
THIRD POINT: Allopathic medicine was accorded the monopoly over dispensing potent medicines, and other schools of medicine were driven out or downgraded as "quackery".
FOURTH POINT: Inflated costs are directly attributed to government - abusive tort laws, monetary debasement, taxation, not to forget to mention that you cannot buy medicine without permission (prescription) bought from a government licensed person. And you can only buy it from another government licensed person, who buys his stock from other licensed entities.
If you wish UNIVERSAL and affordable health care, you must get the government out of the way, and let the free market operate.
FIRST POINT: We shouldn't license doctors? Maybe we should have barbers perform surgery like in the old west? Personally, I want my surgeon licensed and board certified.
SECOND POINT: Europe has government too and their government is much more involved in health care. The results are that their health care costs are 1/2 of the U.S. private system and their success rate is better.
The right-wing argument that government is the cause of everything bad is not evident here. Since 1970, Medicare costs have been rising at an 8.8% annual cost compared to private insurance's 9.9%. Had private insurance done as well as Medicare, overall costs would be 30% lower today. The lesson from real samples, and not Ayn Rand mythology, is that government involvement is a plus in health care.
How come liberals' justification for public health care revolves around emotional appeals like: "you would rather people die in the streets?"
With 80% or so of this country having some form of health coverage, I am not sure that people literally dying in the streets is a rampant problem.
If you'd like to come up with a better solution for why I should trust the Federal Government, the most inept organization in the US, to control my health care, then I'm all ears.
The answer is it doesn't. Liberals justify public health care with lots of hard facts and evidence.
Every decision ever made is based on emotions. So-called "logical" decisions only use logic to determine which emotional response is more important in the long term than another.
Not having people die from easily treatable ailments is a pretty solid reason to make a decision on, if you ask me.
Do you really want the Quacks to take over in a "free" health care market? They will because they will be cheaper then qualified doctors and they will dominate. The result will be countless shortened lives and greatly increased misery. Licensing doctors was one of the first and most important examples of consumer protection.
The biggest problem with “free marketers" is they apparently believe everyone in the market is honest and will not cheat the customer. I submit the low end used car market as an example of a “free market". We all know how well that works. We can now expect the used car market to be flooded with flood damaged cars.
Do you want to trust your heart surgery to a real expensive qualified heart surgeon or to a used car salesman with a golden spiel, part ownership in a mortuary and blackmailing the medical examiner?
It revolves around basic facts. Every other modern industrial country has a universal system that covers all, at half the cost of our system with better overall results.
Most of these nations practice personal responsibility for their health in addition to having public health care. They eat healthy and walk everywhere. It's impossible to help those who cannot help themselves, and government money isn't going to solve the issue.
You cannot prove that public health care will lessen costs. It might be an accounting reality, but economically SOMEONE has to pay for it.
If you'd like to come up with a better solution for why I should trust the Federal Government, the most inept organization in the US, to control my health care, then I'm all ears.
Why do you trust the Federal Government for defense of this country? Why not private corporations? They have the best interests of the people and the nation, after all, no?
Liberals needs to realize that, financially, our public health care is located in 900 bases in 130 countries around the world. They won't own up to Obama's continuance of the American Empire, though, because he has a (D) next to his name and their pride will be hurt if they admit Obama is a neo-conservative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
