www.ditl.org

Yeah, that's a good point.

Rochey wrote:You're talking about global warming, I take it?

Yes, not really trying to hide it just trying to avoid a total derail of the thread.

Obviously, I'm in no position to really discuss the current status of US labour.

Suffice it to say that US labor has significant protections on it already.

And what about the millions who don't have good health care? What are they to do?

Use what's currently available. Hospitals aren't allowed to not treat someone who comes in sick. There are free clinics and low cost urgent care clinics. Many stores now offer common perscriptions at low cost even without insurance.

I'll be honest. I don't see absolute top of the line health care to be a right that society owes you. When I went looking for a job I made having a good health care plan a significant part of the equation. I took responsibility for it myself.

And is it any better to let companies, whose only motiviation is to make as much money for themselves as possible while providing the minimum in care, to run things?

When you're talking about non-vital things, it's perfectly fine to let companies run it. But when talking about something so serious as the lives of everyone in the country, I seriously doubt that a bunch of money-hungry CEOs are going to be the best choice to head it.

Yes, the government can screw things up royaly when they get their hands on it. I've experienced enough of that myself to know it to be true. But if it comes down to a choice between politicians - who have it in their best interests to keep the people happy - and a bunch of corporate suits - whose only interest is in themselves - then I'll take the politicians any day.

Except for the fact that the companies have to keep you happy as well. If I'm not satisfied with my current company's service I enroll in another one. In fact the companies have more of a reason to keep your happy than the politicians. The health insurance companies have one product they're offering you, health insurance. If they do a crappy job you leave. Politicians have other issues they can get reelected on and a great big constituency that pays little to no attention to the issues aside from whether a candidate has a D or an R next to their name.

IIRC, the US actualy pays more per capita on health care than nations with universal health care.

Yes, taxes will probably go up. But what most Americans don't seem to realise is that, compared to Europe, they pay almost nothing in taxes. Over here, we pay shitloads of our paycheck back in taxes. Despite that, I'd rather be content in the knowledge that I have a good social net to back me up if the worst should happen than have a bit more money to spend on myself.

No, I do realize it, and I like it that way. The less of my money the government takes the better. The less they intrude into my life the better.

Do I wish health care cost less? Sure I do. However you pay a premium for quality and choice. I'll happily pay a bit more if it means I get to make the decisions about my health care instead of the government.

Mikey wrote:The filibuster is de facto often a last resort of useless time mismanagement and the avail of a lost cause. However, this could set a dangerous precedent - namely, that of overriding the governing values of our legislation in order to serve the convenience of the majority party. No matter which party that is at any one time, that idea makes me uncomfortable.

That I agree with. I wouldn't be excited about a filibuster proof republican majority either. The government is intended to be set up to prevent any one side from gaining to much power and completely ignore the other.

Yes, not really trying to hide it just trying to avoid a total derail of the thread.

No worries. Such a debate should probably be in another thread, anyway.

Suffice it to say that US labor has significant protections on it already.

Okay, accepted.

Use what's currently available. Hospitals aren't allowed to not treat someone who comes in sick. There are free clinics and low cost urgent care clinics. Many stores now offer common perscriptions at low cost even without insurance.

So anyone can just wander in with no health insurance and get looked after? Who pays for that, then? And why doesn't everyone just do that?

I'll be honest. I don't see absolute top of the line health care to be a right that society owes you. When I went looking for a job I made having a good health care plan a significant part of the equation. I took responsibility for it myself.

Yeah, that's one of the major differences between Americans and....well, everywhere else. We see health care as a right, not a privilage.

I suppose this is as good a thread as any to ask, so why do you think that way? Does not the constitution claim that everyone has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness"? If so, wouldn't the right to health care be included in the first and third bits of that quote?

Except for the fact that the companies have to keep you happy as well. If I'm not satisfied with my current company's service I enroll in another one. In fact the companies have more of a reason to keep your happy than the politicians. The health insurance companies have one product they're offering you, health insurance. If they do a crappy job you leave. Politicians have other issues they can get reelected on and a great big constituency that pays little to no attention to the issues aside from whether a candidate has a D or an R next to their name.

Do correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not American, so obviously I only know what I've heard from some Americans on the matter), but isn't whichever insurance company you're with depend on who you work for? Your previous comment about looking for looking for a job with a good health care plan would seem to suggest this too.

No, I do realize it, and I like it that way. The less of my money the government takes the better. The less they intrude into my life the better.

Do I wish health care cost less? Sure I do. However you pay a premium for quality and choice. I'll happily pay a bit more if it means I get to make the decisions about my health care instead of the government.

Well, I guess that one's just down to a subjective preference. Personaly, I'd preffer paying higher taxes to have a good safety net to take care of me after any mishaps.
On another note, there are still private hospitals and insurance companies in Europe, in addition to government-run plans. So you do still have the choice of where to go to provided you're still concious enough to direct the ambulance.

Rochey wrote:So anyone can just wander in with no health insurance and get looked after? Who pays for that, then? And why doesn't everyone just do that?

Often the tax payer does in the case of people who are simply in capable of paying. And yes, I'm aware that means I am already paying taxes to support that part of the health care system. It doesn't mean I'm looking to expand it.

As for why people don't? That's up to them. Some don't because they don't want the hand out. Other's don't want to pay even the low cost of some of the urgent care clinics. Many don't want to go to a free clinic or urgent care facility.

I should also clarify that. They can't refuse to treat a life threatening or serious illness. If you show up wanting gastric bypass surgery but don't have the insurance or money to pay for it they have the right to tell you to piss off.

Yeah, that's one of the major differences between Americans and....well, everywhere else. We see health care as a right, not a privilage.

I suppose this is as good a thread as any to ask, so why do you think that way? Does not the constitution claim that everyone has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness"? If so, wouldn't the right to health care be included in the first and third bits of that quote?

I don't think it does. The first part only indicates life. You're allowed to live here. If you're a citizen you can't be summarily at the whim of a monarch or be deported for no reason. As for the third part you have the right to pursue it. At no point is happiness guaranteed. All that guarantees is that the government won't prevent you from trying to be happy, not that they'll ensure you are.

Do correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not American, so obviously I only know what I've heard from some Americans on the matter), but isn't whichever insurance company you're with depend on who you work for? Your previous comment about looking for looking for a job with a good health care plan would seem to suggest this too.

Not necessarily. My company offers health plans from three different insurers. I can pick the one I want. Many places don't offer that kind of choice but again, I went looking for a place with a good health plan.

Well, I guess that one's just down to a subjective preference. Personaly, I'd preffer paying higher taxes to have a good safety net to take care of me after any mishaps.
On another note, there are still private hospitals and insurance companies in Europe, in addition to government-run plans. So you do still have the choice of where to go to provided you're still concious enough to direct the ambulance.

Are the people who chose to make use of private insurers and hospitals still required to pay taxes for the government supplied health plan?

Not to take this too far aside, but talk of a national health care plan in America must be tempered with a sober, calm look. For every Canada and UK, there is an Italian-type national health care which would be an absolute nightmare based on both the American mindset and the sheer size of the American population. Being a patient of a doctor who has worked in Italy, in Canada, and in our privatized system, I know there are HUGE pitfalls to be overcome in a national system from the POV's of both the provider and the patient - pitfalls which become huge yawning abysses when multiplied by the size of our population.

I'll give you my own example; I need regular stress tests, HgA1c tests, etc. In many national systems worldwide, the allocation for my care may run out on May 23; no matter how urgently I need one of those tests, now I may have to wait until the following fiscal year. Now I'm in bad shape, AND my doctor is stymied in trying to treat me appropriately. Further - in effort to avoid this sort of thing, a trip to the doctor's office commonly results in a prescription a/o recommendation without an examination. I don't think I have to explain how bad that can be on many different levels.

Both Tyrr and Mikey make excellent points. But I would like to add to some of their comments.

National health care is not for the well being of those who cannot afford insurance. It is a matter of power for those who would like to control every aspect of our lives. Unfortunately the independent streak that most of us Americans pride ourselves in is being slowly replace by a dependent class who are, to be honest, taken advantage of. We as the individual want to do as we please with OUR money. Granted there are taxes that should be paid in order to have the things we need, to protect the USA, educate our kids and help those who need help. But not just freely give money to those who refuse to contribute.

It all comes down to the fact that most of us believe that we are not getting our money's worth and the government is coming back for more. And for the most part they have rewarded failure and wish to kowtow to the lowest common denominator.

I'm not sure I would have put it quite that right-leaning, but the fact is that policy is directed toward appeasement and mass appeal - because policy-makers have to consider what will get them the most votes at the next go-round rather than what's best. Politicians who preach common sense and doing what's necessary and right over what's popular end up not being in office to make those things happen.

Mikey wrote:I'm not sure I would have put it quite that right-leaning, but the fact is that policy is directed toward appeasement and mass appeal - because policy-makers have to consider what will get them the most votes at the next go-round rather than what's best. Politicians who preach common sense and doing what's necessary and right over what's popular end up not being in office to make those things happen.

If my post came across as far right that was not my intent. Just venting my frustration with our elected officials. But your comment on politicians and common sense is correct in my opinion. Kinda like combining the old joke about military and intelligence in the same sentence! LOL

Tyyr wrote: Often the tax payer does in the case of people who are simply in capable of paying. And yes, I'm aware that means I am already paying taxes to support that part of the health care system. It doesn't mean I'm looking to expand it.

As for why people don't? That's up to them. Some don't because they don't want the hand out. Other's don't want to pay even the low cost of some of the urgent care clinics. Many don't want to go to a free clinic or urgent care facility.

So you have a system where you do pay tax for government health care, but also pay money for private health care? That's rather odd.

I should also clarify that. They can't refuse to treat a life threatening or serious illness. If you show up wanting gastric bypass surgery but don't have the insurance or money to pay for it they have the right to tell you to piss off.

And so what do the unfortunate people who can't afford to have these problems dealt with do? Just live with their potentialy crippling problems and deal with it on their own? Don't you think that's rather callous? It seems that such a stance is simply "I've got everything I need, so fuck anyone else who wasn't as successful and fortunate in life as me".

I don't think it does. The first part only indicates life. You're allowed to live here. If you're a citizen you can't be summarily at the whim of a monarch or be deported for no reason. As for the third part you have the right to pursue it. At no point is happiness guaranteed. All that guarantees is that the government won't prevent you from trying to be happy, not that they'll ensure you are.

Okay, fair points, but I was appealing more to the spirit of it than the letter. Do you not agree that everyone should have the right to live their lives free from crippling but treatable problems?

Not necessarily. My company offers health plans from three different insurers. I can pick the one I want. Many places don't offer that kind of choice but again, I went looking for a place with a good health plan.

Okay, so it seems like you're pretty well set if you encounter any problems.
But what about the guys working down at Wall Mart? I'm sure they don't have a choice between three seperate companies. What do they do?

Are the people who chose to make use of private insurers and hospitals still required to pay taxes for the government supplied health plan?

To be perfectly honest, I haven't a clue. For my entire life, I've been using Ireland's semi-universal health system, the Health Service Executive. You pay taxes, and the HSE pays for the majority of your hospital costs, leaving you to pay just a small amount. That's worked just fine for me, so I've never bothered looking for any private groups. The only time I was ever in a private hospital was as a kid when I had my appendix removed. Though given that my family weren't exactly rich back then, I doubt it cost much for them to have me moved there.

I'll go look that up, and get back to you about it.

Mikey wrote: Not to take this too far aside, but talk of a national health care plan in America must be tempered with a sober, calm look. For every Canada and UK, there is an Italian-type national health care which would be an absolute nightmare based on both the American mindset and the sheer size of the American population. Being a patient of a doctor who has worked in Italy, in Canada, and in our privatized system, I know there are HUGE pitfalls to be overcome in a national system from the POV's of both the provider and the patient - pitfalls which become huge yawning abysses when multiplied by the size of our population.

You're quite right, the quality really depends on the country in question. If it's a good country that's capable of providing good service, like Canada for example, then it's a great system. If the country is....well, like Italy, then there's going to be problems.
That's where the alternative of choosing a private group comes in.

Really, it doesn't seem that much different from the US. The more money you have, the better the quality of care you'll recieve.
The difference is that over here, you're not completely fucked if you don't have money.

I'll give you my own example; I need regular stress tests, HgA1c tests, etc. In many national systems worldwide, the allocation for my care may run out on May 23; no matter how urgently I need one of those tests, now I may have to wait until the following fiscal year. Now I'm in bad shape, AND my doctor is stymied in trying to treat me appropriately. Further - in effort to avoid this sort of thing, a trip to the doctor's office commonly results in a prescription a/o recommendation without an examination. I don't think I have to explain how bad that can be on many different levels

Where exactly did that happen to you? I've never heard of someone being refused care due to some sort of allocated time running out.

Jethro wrote: National health care is not for the well being of those who cannot afford insurance. It is a matter of power for those who would like to control every aspect of our lives.

Uh...what? Please explain how Canada's government is controlling every aspect of its citizens lives due to their health care system.

Unfortunately the independent streak that most of us Americans pride ourselves in is being slowly replace by a dependent class who are, to be honest, taken advantage of.

Exactly how are they being taken advantage of? The current system is taking advantage of them.

We as the individual want to do as we please with OUR money. Granted there are taxes that should be paid in order to have the things we need, to protect the USA, educate our kids and help those who need help.

I'm interested in how you put "protect the USA" in there. By that, presumably, you mean against foreign and domestic threats, yes?

So you're willing to pay taxes to protect other people against the Mexicans invading. That's fine. So am I (well, I'm not too worried about the Mexicans, but you get my point).

You're also willing to protect other people against murderers and thieves, right? Again, I'm cool with that. Because I'm the same.

Additionaly, I'm sure you're also happy protecting other people against having their houses burned down by fire. Correct? Again, I'm with you all the way here.

So what about protecting people against diesease, serious health problems and accidental injuries? Why not extend taxes to cover that as well? Surely that's just as important as protecting people against having their houses burgled, yes? In fact, it's actualy more important since a sick man can spread his sickness to you. So if you're willing to protect yourself against a serial killer, why are you unwilling to protect yourself against a contagious diesease?

Similarly, if you are unhappy about paying for other people to stay in good health, why are you happy about paying for other people to have the police arrest someone who's broken into their house? After all, they're not your concern, right? So why should you be forced to pay taxes to protect someone else's property, when that person may be on the other side of the country? Surely a much better system would be to take each police station, and turn them into privately-run companies. You pay money to them, and you can call them in an emergency and they'll do their thing. And without all that political and beaurocratic crap out of the way, the system is sure to move much better, right? Also, you won't have the government enforcing their will on you any more. Surely that's one great benefit of this new system!

So tell me, if you're all for socialised police, why are you against socialised doctors?

Tyyr wrote:I don't find environmental protection to be a bad idea. I do find knee-jerk legislation in response to mass hysteria over a poorly at best understood phenomenon to be a bad idea however. Especially when that legislation is going to cost hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars to implement with no real guarantee of doing anything constructive. I'm not ready to watch my country slit its own throat over the altar of environmentalism for no real benefit.

Labor protection, just what about labor in the US needs protecting? If anything over protection of labor is counter productive, case in point the US auto industry. Labor has the auto industry in the US by the short and curlies. The auto industry in the US is also tanking, there might be a correlation.

I currently have health care, good health care. I have no desire to see the government stick its nose into it. The government doesn't have a great track record of improving things when it gets involved. I don't want the same people who brought you the DMV and IRS running the health care profession in the US. To add to it the tax burden will be huge. I already pay a good portion of my pay check for my health insurance, I don't want to have to pay even more for someone else's.

sweet we finally have a discerning voice among us.

Rochey wrote:And so what do the unfortunate people who can't afford to have these problems dealt with do? Just live with their potentialy crippling problems and deal with it on their own? Don't you think that's rather callous? It seems that such a stance is simply "I've got everything I need, so f**k anyone else who wasn't as successful and fortunate in life as me".

The example given was a gastric bypass, which is generally an elective procedure used to treat a condition that most commonly has non-surgical, even non-medical, treatments. When it is deemed medically necessary (as an alternative to open-head thyroid surgery, for example) it's often covered.

Rochey wrote:So you have a system where you do pay tax for government health care, but also pay money for private health care? That's rather odd.

We pay for a fraction of our own medical coverage, and then a small amount towards a pool for the uninsured - small relative to what we'd have to pay in for true national care.

Rochey wrote:But what about the guys working down at Wall Mart? I'm sure they don't have a choice between three seperate companies. What do they do?

For better or worse, they take what's offered and thank WalMart that they have any coverage at all.

Rochey wrote:Where exactly did that happen to you? I've never heard of someone being refused care due to some sort of allocated time running out.

It didn't happen to me. I'm not talking about allocated time, but allocated money - i.e., there's only so much available to be spent per person per fiscal year. That's the way Italy's national health care was explained to me by a doctor who had worked under that system.

Both sides have made some great posts.

And yes you can go into a hospital in the US with a life threatening condition and they can't refuse to help you. BUT they can stick you with a $60,000 dollar bill when you only make a tenth that a year. That needs to change.

And Walmart's Healthcare plan wasn't -that- bad. I think it was copay, which is what I have now which isn't bad for small problems but if I developed cancer or AIDs or something like that I'd be royally screwed.

Rochey wrote:So you have a system where you do pay tax for government health care, but also pay money for private health care? That's rather odd.

Yes, it is. I should also mention that part of the reason medical costs in the US are so high is due to people getting treated then not paying for it and the government telling the hospitals they won't pay for it. Hospitals have to spread that cost out over all their paitents. Again, we're already paying for it partially.

And so what do the unfortunate people who can't afford to have these problems dealt with do? Just live with their potentialy crippling problems and deal with it on their own? Don't you think that's rather callous? It seems that such a stance is simply "I've got everything I need, so f**k anyone else who wasn't as successful and fortunate in life as me".

Actually no it's not. It's the stance that says individuals should first rely upon themselves, then familes, friends, and other organizations. That the government should not be the first person to turn to in order to fix your problems.

I'm not entirely against the government helping those truely unfortunate who have no other support network. I'm not. The problem is that isn't what universal health care is. It's everyone saddling up to the governmental teat and no one taking responsibility for their own welfare.

Okay, fair points, but I was appealing more to the spirit of it than the letter. Do you not agree that everyone should have the right to live their lives free from crippling but treatable problems?

You're going to have to define crippling and treatable.

In the broad generalities though, no. It's easy to say yes. It's easy to say that yes we'll just give everyone all the free healthcare they need, we'll fix any problem you have and no one will ever be turned away. I'd love it if that were possible, but it's not. Speaking as a family man with limited resources I bust my ass in order to provide for my family, both my wife and kids and my extended family when I can help. I've taken steps to ensure they're provided for and taken care of. When the talk of universal health care crops up its a nice lofty ideal but it bumps into my reality real fast. I have X amount of money and right now that's being spent on my family, I don't have a big wad of disposable income that I can make a few cut backs, eat out a little less, and help fund solving the world's problems.

At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and their friends and families. Universal health care removes that responsibility and the government takes over. Every time the government takes over something a bit more of our personal freedom dies.

Okay, so it seems like you're pretty well set if you encounter any problems.
But what about the guys working down at Wall Mart? I'm sure they don't have a choice between three seperate companies. What do they do?

Deal with the plan they've got. Plenty of people have horror stories about their health plans but that ignores the bulk of people who recieve good high quality care because of them. If you don't like your job at Wal-Mart, well this is the US, there's a college on every corner. Knock yourself out like I did.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't a clue.

I'll go look that up, and get back to you about it.

I'm curious, because if they told me I could opt out of universal health care, keep my exisiting plan, and not have to pay the tax hike for the health care I'd be a lot less opposed to it.

Damn Rochey, you're on a roll today! I have tried to properly cut and paste and place the appropriate comments.

Jethro wrote: National health care is not for the well being of those who cannot afford insurance. It is a matter of power for those who would like to control every aspect of our lives.

Rochey wrote: Uh...what? Please explain how Canada's government is controlling every aspect of its citizens lives due to their health care system.

I am not talking about Canada, I am talking out my own country and what I believe for my country. I do layovers in Canada from time to time and in my interaction with the 'locals' many have stated that they are not pleased with their system.

Jethro wrote: Unfortunately the independent streak that most of us Americans pride ourselves in is being slowly replace by a dependent class who are, to be honest, taken advantage of.

Rochey wrote: Exactly how are they being taken advantage of? The current system is taking advantage of them.

Here's an example, having lived in Memphis I have seen a certain voting block voting for a candidate based upon their skin color. And still the the city is an utter wreck with a multitude of crimes, a poor education sysytem and welfare dependence. IIRC 60% of the state's welfare money goes to Shelby county, where the city of Memphis is. Three of every four dollars go to the city schools where the county schools and get the one. The county schools far surpass the city schools in performance. The politicians continue to play upon the voter bias in order to secure a vote. But after millions, possibly billions have been spent nothing has changed. They are still stuck in the same rut. I mean my God we nuke Japan twice, but we helped them rebuild and now they are kicking our ass in a multitude of industries.

Jethro wrote: We as the individual want to do as we please with OUR money. Granted there are taxes that should be paid in order to have the things we need, to protect the USA, educate our kids and help those who need help.

Rochey wrote: I'm interested in how you put "protect the USA" in there. By that, presumably, you mean against foreign and domestic threats, yes?

So you're willing to pay taxes to protect other people against the Mexicans invading. That's fine. So am I (well, I'm not too worried about the Mexicans, but you get my point).

You're also willing to protect other people against murderers and thieves, right? Again, I'm cool with that. Because I'm the same.

Additionaly, I'm sure you're also happy protecting other people against having their houses burned down by fire. Correct? Again, I'm with you all the way here.

So what about protecting people against diesease, serious health problems and accidental injuries? Why not extend taxes to cover that as well? Surely that's just as important as protecting people against having their houses burgled, yes? In fact, it's actualy more important since a sick man can spread his sickness to you. So if you're willing to protect yourself against a serial killer, why are you unwilling to protect yourself against a contagious diesease?

Similarly, if you are unhappy about paying for other people to stay in good health, why are you happy about paying for other people to have the police arrest someone who's broken into their house? After all, they're not your concern, right? So why should you be forced to pay taxes to protect someone else's property, when that person may be on the other side of the country? Surely a much better system would be to take each police station, and turn them into privately-run companies. You pay money to them, and you can call them in an emergency and they'll do their thing. And without all that political and beaurocratic crap out of the way, the system is sure to move much better, right? Also, you won't have the government enforcing their will on you any more. Surely that's one great benefit of this new system!

So tell me, if you're all for socialised police, why are you against socialised doctors?

As an American I am concerned about threats both foreign and domestic. But also I feel that we have tried to Americanize to much of the world.

And you just opened up another can of worms concerning law enforcement. Due to sympathies for the criminal police are sometime limited as to what they can do and are constantly subject to Monday morning quarter backs. For example the Rodney King incident, a bad reaction by the police, but to paraphrase Chris Rock, he wouldn't have gotten is ass beat if he hadn't run. Also we can't have life like the old west with everyone walking around with a six shooter. If they want to fine, but I don't care for vigilante justice.

Health care is an individual and collective concern. Right now I have the option of going to a doctor of my choice when and where I want. I do not want some politician to tell me otherwise. I think that most of us Americans have the fear of having to stay in a hospital bed that has been placed in the hallway for a fortnight (Billy Connelly joke) For the most part Americans are very charitable and there are many institutions that fight the battle concerning diseases and care for those who cannot afford treatment. My family gives generously to these organizations. Additionally the government has set ups like this as well. Prove to me that they can manage these properly and I might change my mind.

My concern is those who wish to do not care to contribute will continue to be a drain on our system.

Our education system is in shambles. I had heard that the national average for home schooling and private schools is around 11%, in my city/county it is over 20%. And due to my families concern about its inadequacies have opted to send our kids to a private school, costing upwards around $1000/month.

It all boils down to the general concern that it seems like whenever there is a concern by the government an additional tax or tax increase seems to be the standard response. But nothing is done and all they generally pay is lip service. And their focus is on polls and public opinions of the moment.

This discussion has sometimes made me wish I did true international flights so I could discuss these issues over a pint of your choice.