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.
A wish-list item among leftist fanatics, where government takes money from those who earn it and either spends it directly on various govt-approved health insurance programs, or gives it in subsidies to people who did not earn it, ostensibly for them to purchase various govt-approved health insurance programs.
People who refuse to join in and help a society solve its problems are nothing more than parasites!
Nonsense. There is nothing about a compassionate society that ensures coverage of compassion across any assuredly large breadth of the need.
However, you have the definition of "better" wrong, because you're averaging effects, thereby losing the overriding significance of significant failures.
The point is that, you cannot possibly have a democratic government creating laws for the purpose of compassion, unless the majority of the people agree to it. Thus at the very least, in the absence of government, 51% of the people would be trying to help those in need.
It is unlikely that if 51% of the people are engaged in preventing people from dying on the streets, that people would be dying on the streets.
The argument has long been that those who are most compassionate, tend to be more poor. And that the people with less compassion, tend to be the ones with the means to help. And so, the proper role of socialism, is to force those with the means, to help those who do not.
When we look at reality, those who are most opposed to socialism, have much higher rates of charitable giving. And those who are most supportive of socialism, have the lowest rates of charitable giving.
Thus, if you consider "voluntary giving" to be indicative of a persons "selfishness". You will realize that those who claim to be compassionate, are actually more selfish. And what many in the 51% of so-called "compassionate" people really want, is to take from those who have, because they believe that they deserve it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
I don't think longevity has to do with race as someone claimed. It has to do with culture, habits, nutrition, etc.
Well, there is plenty of genetic research that connects certain genetic disorders to ancestry. There is plenty of research that connects certain types of cancer to ancestry. Heart disease to ancestry. Etc.
For instance, Native-Americans have a much higher probability of getting diabetes. Blacks are more likely to have heart problems.
There are genes that drastically increase your odds of getting a variety of cancers. Angelina Jolie was basically getting her breasts cut off, because she is a carrier of that gene(and her mother died of breast cancer).
The women in my family seem to have a gene that relates to high probabilities of uterine cancer. My grandmother died of it, my mother died of it, and two of my sisters have had growths removed.
I referred to race, but what I really mean is ancestry. Race is just an easier way to represent the general similarities of people with common ancestries. Especially since race is far easier to see and track.
With that said, I do agree that culture plays a larger factor than race. But, of those people who are culturally similar, there will be noticeable differences based on race/ancestry. And that needs to be recognized. Otherwise, anytime there isn't perfect equality, there is an assumption that there must be something wrong.
When all factors are taken into consideration, there is not a considerable difference between white health outcomes in the United States, and white health outcomes in Europe. If anything, white people actually have better health outcomes in the US than in Europe. Their lower life-expectancy is largely a result of other factors, that have absolutely nothing to do with healthcare(such as car accidents).
In almost every case where people attempt to use statistics to support their argument, they are being irresponsible, because they ignore all of the factors that affect the outcome. And rather, just pull out what they want to believe, and ignore the rest.
The point is that, you cannot possibly have a democratic government creating laws for the purpose of compassion, unless the majority of the people agree to it.
First, this isn't "creating laws for the purpose of compassion": It's law created by a compassionate society. There's a difference. Second, a majority of people - often vast majorities of people - do agree to many of the tenets of healthcare reform that would tend to lead to universal health care. For example, most people agree with the major tenets of Guaranteed Issue, i.e., that insurance should exclude preexisting conditions, impose lifetime caps, or otherwise refuse to cover people who need healthcare or charge them such high rates that they cannot hope to afford it. There is a general sentiment in our society, which hasn't been snuffed out yet by right-wing self-centeredness, that such "compassion" should be part of whatever healthcare system we have in this country. The conflict is not with regard to what healthcare should be, at least with regard to these tenets, but rather with regard to how those tenets get paid for. The current law has the benefit of actually having a way to pay for those tenets that the majority of people agree should be respected. And at the time the law was passed, a majority of people even agreed with how those tenets would be paid for - the result of a grand compromise between pro-patient legislators on the left and pro-business legislators on the right. Let's not forget for a minute that the egoistic greed-mongers in the GOP have been working for almost five years to reverse the support for ACA, but that scurrilous propaganda's success doesn't reverse the reality that the law was supported by a majority when it was passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Thus at the very least, in the absence of government, 51% of the people would be trying to help those in need. It is unlikely that if 51% of the people are engaged in preventing people from dying on the streets, that people would be dying on the streets.
Presenting this as a reasonable statement implies that you think readers are incredibly naive. We need to rebuild a fence in some common space in our neighborhood. 51% of our residents agree that it should be done. That doesn't mean that the entire burden of the cost and work of rebuilding the fence should be foisted on that 51%. We live in community with each other and a hallmark of democratic society is that when a majority agrees that the society should do something the society, as a whole, does it. There are protections to ensure that majorities don't trample civil rights, but there is no civil right to not pay one's share of the costs of living in society with others - despite the ridiculously selfish prattle of right-wing talking heads on television.
Many productive, responsible citizens don't have enough money, increasingly due to a doubling of economic inequality in society over the last generation, which itself was is a reflection of increasingly egoistic, avaricious policy coming from the GOP. Data shows that the United States has allowed changes resulting in a substantially higher percentage of low-wage jobs in society: 24.8% as compared to 20.6% for the UK, 20.5% for Canada, 20.2% for Germany, going all the way down to 4.0% for Belgium. [Source: OECD (2011) and Mason and Salverda (2010).] The reality is that these right-leaning structural changes have radically degraded the American labor marketplace, raising the percentage of employees earning less than two-thirds median wage from 21% in 1979 all the way up to 27% in 2011. [Source: Center for Economic and Policy Research.]
So the solution to the quandary you are unhappy about involves reversing the right-wing actions taken, which have fostered record productivity and profits, but at the cost of economic justice for the bottom 27% of the labor pool.
There are mooches: It us - the investors in American business. We're mooching off of the low-wage workers we employ who, in the previous generation, would have been paid substantially more, adjusted for inflation, for the same work. I'm not going to pay your share of the costs our investing behaviors have promoted. You're benefiting just like I am, and so it is perfect right that you pay, just like I am.
UK total healthcare spending per person - $3480
Public - $2919
Private - $561
Doctors per 10000 - 27.43
Life expectancy - 81.05
Australia total healthcare spending per person - $3441
Public - $2340
Private - $1101
Doctors per 10000 - 29.91
Life expectancy - 81.81
USA total healthcare spending per person - $8362
Public - $4437
Private - $3925
Doctors per 10000 - 24.22
Life expectancy - 78.37
The UK and Australia both have universal healthcare, and still manage to spend less on health than the US does (while both having better outcomes in most cases).
Not accurate, not relevant, and not meaningful.
You need to learn how to do actual analysis of complex things.
Universal healthcare should be available to every WORKING man, woman and child of such. It should be available for everyone who is LEGITIMATELY disabled and for women on maternity leave
It should not cover any "choice" procedures.... like fake bodyparts, tattoo removal etc.
so in all of those countries, each citizen gets the exact same health care for the exact same price? nothing is based on socioeconomic circumstances? the "rich" wait in line behind john q. citizen? do you honestly believe this?
Yup, that is how it works. In Canada the homeless are equal to the millionaires when it comes to health care, and I don't just believe this I know it.
Yup, that is how it works. In Canada the homeless are equal to the millionaires when it comes to health care, and I don't just believe this I know it.
I am all for the working poor to get good healthcare equally to the wealthy.... but I can't see how someone who chooses not to contribute should get equal healthcare
I am not referring to someone who cant help their situation, I am referring to the homeless guy is able bodied and IS able to work but chooses not to
I'm mixed on this but I still have some questions. See, nothing is free and it seems those country's offering "universal" health care also have at least 15 to 20% more in tax. So based on a 50000 year income that is an extra 7500 to 10000 a year payed in taxes to cover that "free" health care. My premiums come to about 2000/year. why would I want to spend an extra 5500 to 7000 for the same coverage basically. So what if I have to pay a deductible. Most years I don't have to pay anything but premiums so I'll only be paying my 2000/year. Even with the issues I had this year with a heart attack and dialysis the most I'm paying this year is about 6000 incl my deductibles.
Now if our government would cut some spending, such as aid and weapons to country's that hate us and stop offering welfare for illegals perhaps that money could go into a version of universal health care such as a raise in income requirements for medicaid. As of now there is medicaid for the poor so the poor should not be whining. I was poor when I had cancer 15 years ago and with a little bit of WORK (something many don't want to do), the papers were filled out and all my operations at a first rate hospital and a years worth of chemo from a first rate cancer center was covered. It just took a little searching and a few phone calls. Not that hard.
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.
