Welp, now I can go buy healthcare

Nice try , those are minor complaints , and not universal

I would say most people are satisfied with our system

Good effort on the spin though

 

No doubt

 

It's absolutely nebulous. Let me demonstrate how. It could mean more federal employees on payroll. It could mean more beneficiaries. It could mean more responsibilities of the program. More oversight of the program. It could mean all of these with a larger budget. It could mean all of these with a smaller budget.

Care to tell me which of those, or any other possible interpretation I may have missed, you intended?

Or will any of them do and you just consider "expansion" of government as an all-purpose bogeyman?

Read this and come back afterward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory

Saying "they're displacing my liberty" is absolutely hilarious without specifics.

So in other words, it has all the same problems as the US system, but it costs less and everyone has access to it.

Honest answer please: Would you rather have:

- A system with those four adjectives but higher costs and with limited access.

or

- A system with those four adjective but lower costs and equal access.

I'm genuinely interested.

He's really trying hard isn't he?

Notice that he completely dodged this?

 

yes, i think your revised statement will suffice... there are big concerns w/ their system, and i must admit, ...i'm a bit surprised i caught OZ admitting it, ...hence the need to quote...

...sure there are some real problems w/ our system, but our system is not a true market system, ...it can/should be reformed, but in a way that improves choice/competition w/out onerous mandates and one-sized fits all regulations dictated by centralized authorities in DC...

 

Spin spin spin

 

i think i caught you in a moment where you let the truth slip - you revealed the "concerns" folks have w/ the system... if it were not a problem, it probably would not be of concern w/ the folks... ...plus it's consistent w/ what we hear of systems of that mold..

 

well for now i’m on my parents. but idk if can get it when i get off theres. maybe i’ll have a job that pays for it or something idk right now.

 

..all of the above - i think you've interpreted it correctly... now, if you can do all the expansion of said things, ...and for less cost (the gub'mt is funded by??????? taxes and borrowing), ...you've far outdone the folks still trying to make perpetual motion a reality...

 

I have nothing to hide

Jan asked whether people complain about the costs , they generally don't , they nit pick small issues that bother them , not the entire concept or system .

Systems of that mold ? In this thread there are many examples of people in your pay system that are unable to receive care without paying substantial fees , all systems have issues

 

Be fair. If they have big concerns, we have big concerns. They do not have "big concerns" and we have "some real problems". The word choice is telling about the attempted spin.

I have to ask: What do you do for a living?

I ask because the "we need more choice" argument is one I commonly hear from people that do not work in healthcare. It's easy when you don't work in healthcare to think consumer choice exists in healthcare. I'm going to let you in on a secret:

It does not.

Consumer choice relies on the concept of an informed consumer. Unless you ARE a health professional, you cannot be an informed consumer in health care. If you knew what the MD knew, you wouldn't need him/her, nor would you seek his/her advice. Even if you are a health professional (which I am), you are then an informed consumer only in your scope of practice.

Furthermore, a huge portion of the population that needs health care can't choose. They are mentally disabled or demented. They are unable to communicate. They are arriving in an ambulance unconscious, brought to this facility regardless of their choice because they would die otherwise.

Consumer choice does not exist in health care because consumers are often unable to educate themselves about the best option when need for treatment arises - waiting makes the condition worse, waiting drives up costs, waiting may kill them.

The real issue at the core of the healthcare debate is one simple question:

- Is health care a right or a privilege?

Privileges are available to those who can attain them. Rights are protected by governments. An individual's personal answer to this question will lead to their perspective on how health care should be provided.

 

...i know, you didn't hide it... you mentioned "wait times , lack of family doctors available , efficiency of the system" - i'd consider that the crux of health care...

our system definietly not perfect either, but largely the specific concerns you've mentioned are not as pronounced here, ....yet....

 

If you pay a tax and receive a direct benefit (reduction in care cost, access to care, fair treatment from insurance providers...pick whatever you like), that is the purpose of the government's existence.

You still haven't answered this one:

So what's up? Government programs are bad, so why aren't you lobbying to have those water filtration plants bulldozed? And why aren't you chasing off the city-funded garbage man with a shotgun and forcing him to leave your bags of refuse on your porch? After all, it's YOUR trash, not the governments!

Would you agree that some access to a doctor after a wait is better than no access at all?

 

I mentioned what people complain about . People live by me in the rainforest in BC and complain it rains too much too .

You can have your system , I am fine with knowing I won't go broke because I was involved in an accident or similar .

 

no spin from me, ..i reiterated OZ use of terminology...

...i don't reveal "what i do", but i will say i do not work in the health industry...

...healthcare is not a right, ..at least not in the sense of constitutional rights (i.e. bill of rights)... the notion that (most) folks can't make decisions for themselves is quite arrogant, and is indicative of the ruling class mentality...

 

We obviously view healthcare differently

 

A matter of opinion. Many people could easily argue that you are forced to have a level of health when you are born. Since no one chooses to be born or not, you are forced to have a degree of health. If life is a right, people could logically state healthcare is then a right, since life and health are inseparable.

It would be fallacious to say perfect health is a right, because perfect health is not guaranteed, nor what everyone starts with, nor can the system provide it in all circumstances.

That is not what I said, you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I said many people who need healthcare cannot make decisions for themselves. Perfectly healthy people generally make fine decisions; they also don't need healthcare, so their ability to make a choice about it is irrelevant.

I am not quoting your spin-talk below that which was intended to act as a Red Herring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

And paint me as having a perspective I do not. Please try to avoid such nonsense. People with actual ability to debate do not need to sink to such levels.

 

ok, so;

1) you're assuming it's something one wants to be taxed on?... there should be not limit to what you can be taxed for?... i'd like to think there are limits, and the people ultimately hold sway over the gub'mt (i.e. does the gub'mt work for us, or do we work for the gub'mt)...

2) no i'm not protesting those things, ...but those are largely infrastructure based and there is much precedent for it from the constitution and SCOTUS interpretations... i'd like to think there are limits to the what else the camel's nose can get under though...

3) i agree some access is better than no access.... is there an access problem, or a insurance problem?

 

notice you contradicted yourself in the top part of your post, vs. the bottom part... i.e. everyone needs it stemming from birth, well, unless you're perfectly healthy...

health "care" is a good/service...

 

parts of it were found unconstitutional...

 

This is more like it!

If people hold sway over the government, what are you worried about? That one day they won't be? We gotta be careful here. We're keeping politics out of it so far, but just barely.

There are limits. They're called laws, the most important and executive of which in the United States is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution explicitly states the role of the Supreme Court of the United States is to interpret whether legislation is Constitutional. The Supreme Court has carried out this role as specified and determined PPACA is Constitutional. Therefore, limits exist and PPACA is within those limits, or at least the major provisions are.

Is that not satisfying for you? If not, you are welcome to move to another country, attempt to have the Constitution of the United States amended, or have further legislation implemented that alters the existing legislation.

So again, what's the problem?

Here in the US they are one in the same. No insurance means no access in most cases.

Putting that aside, there are too few medical professionals to meet demand for services in the US. This is why healthcare as an industry continues to grow even in a recessed economy. This is a product of generational demographics and will continue until all the Boomers die off and fewer people enter the "high-need" category (read: elderly) of people who need services.