Healthcare

[Martin]

This whole thread is a joke. Just get it closed and have done with it. This isn't a debate about a topic, it's thinly veiled insults one after another and it's a bloody disgrace. I'm embarrassed reading it.

[Dranzer]

Absolutely ridiculous. Order, you've resorted to using expletive insults in an intellectual discussion. You should know that this made you lose any respect you might have had from anyone in regards to your merit and sense. Thank you for serving. Now, kindly let it go, or get your vulgarity out of my thread.

@Sasquatch

The other choice would be what we're doing now. Everybody gets their necessary healthcare. If you need something to save your life, you will get it.

The words: "for free" aren't anywhere in there. You know why? Because the argument sounds good when it has a loophole. You're right, if someone goes into the ER after a car accident, that person is taken care of [almost] immediately. That's great, but no one really talks about the bill they get in the mail later, do they? No. The system itself is broken beyond repair, and no I don't just mean the healthcare system. Unfortunately, even the great idea of medicine is political. Consequently, that means it's corrupt.

I do agree with you on the idea that "the answer is always money." However, (and maybe I should have reworded the title of this topic a bit better, but I digress,) I do not believe that money was the initial reason behind the idea of "medicine" and the beginning of scientific research in regards to it. There's a school of thought that human beings aren't born selfish, and selfishness is taught; I agree.

I would also like to add as a side note that I know a lot of people who are in the medical field (myself included) that are in it because they would like to help others.

@Heartless Angel

Since this ties into what I just stated above:

The word deserve invokes all sorts of sub-arguments, mostly rooted in foolish human ideas of morality.

And.

We all look out for number one. Sometimes looking out for number one can involve helping others, but nobody is truly selfless in this world. All things have value, and consciously or not, we all calculate these values into our decisions making process.

You're right, not anymore at least. The reason I put these two quotes together is because I'd like to take a look at that "foolish human idea of morality" for a moment. The root of most, if not all ethical or moral issues is happiness. What defines that happiness is where the arguments differ. Therefore, you just argued in a moral way, but it would seem that our idea of morality is different. A few examples of what can happen when two (or more) humans disagree have already been provided in this thread, and on this site's forums alone. I see no need to show anymore (they're seen everywhere).

@Martin

Thank you for sharing that information. I learned something new, which was an objective I had when I created this topic. I was certainly more ignorant to the UK healthcare system than I am now.

Not all human nature is inherently self serving -

I know it seems that I've slightly contradicted myself in what I've previously stated, but allow me to elaborate. First, I agree with you. I also agree the essential root of most ethics/morality is the "pursuit of happiness". However, I believe that the "pursuit of happiness" is not always self-serving.

This is why, self-serving by definition is:

self-serv·ing (slfsûrvng)
adj.
1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests

Pardon my tangent on morality, but this an ethical issue, is it not?

@Rowan

Thanks again for your information as well. I wasn't well acquainted with Australia's healthcare system either, and I was hoping to hear from someone from over yonder.

If America stopped wasting their tax dollars on war then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess...

I felt the need to comment. Unfortunately that is a valid point, but that's a bigger can of worms I really don't care to discuss presently; world peace.

@Everyone

First, I'd like to share this as I found it ironic with all this talk of leeches:

"Commercial Leech Farming Today"
by Thomas Lux

Although it never rivaled wheat, soybean,
cattle and so on farming
there was a living
in leeches
and after a period of decline
there is again
a living to be made
from this endeavor: they’re used to reduce
the blood in tissues
after plastic surgery – eyelifts, tucks,
wrinkle erad, or in certain
microsurgeries – reattaching a finger, penis.
I love the capitalist
spirit. As in most businesses
the technology has improved: instead
of driving an elderly horse
into a leech pond, letting him die
by exsanguination,
and hauling him out
to pick the bloated blossoms
from his hide, it’s now done at Biopharm
(the showcase operation in Swansea,
Wales) – temp control, tanks, aerator
pumps, several species,
each for a specific job. Once, 19th century,
they were applied to the temple
as a treatment for mental
illness. Today we know
their exact chemistry: hirudin,
a blood thinner in their saliva,
also an anesthesia
and dilators for the wound area.
Don’t you love
the image: the Dr. lays a leech along
the tiny stitches of an eyelift.
Where they go after their work is done
I don’t know
but I’ve heard no complaints
from Animal Rights
so perhaps they’re retired
to a lake or adopted
as pets, maybe the best looking
kept to breed. I don’t know. I like the story,
I like the going backwards
to ignorance
to come forward to vanity. I like
the small role they can play
in beauty
or the reattachment of a part,
I like the story because it’s true.

Back to the healthcare discussion. I'd also like to ask what the point of "universal healthcare" is if doctor's offices won't be taking every kind of insurance? Or does the idea of "universal healthcare" incorporate that somewhere? To me that seems like just another loophole.

[Martin]

Apologies sir. Just some parts of the thread maybe
And maybe you're right in what you say. It really just is the way I see it, coming from the healthcare system I have used for the last 22 years. But I see your point.

[Heartless Angel]

There's a school of thought that human beings aren't born selfish, and selfishness is taught; I agree.

I would also like to add as a side note that I know a lot of people who are in the medical field (myself included) that are in it because they would like to help others.

Finally, the non political aspect of the subject I was really hoping would be discussed my someone other than myself. Thank you.

@Heartless Angel

You're right, not anymore at least. The reason I put these two quotes together is because I'd like to take a look at that "foolish human idea of morality" for a moment. The root of most, if not all ethical or moral issues is happiness. What defines that happiness is where the arguments differ. Therefore, you just argued in a moral way, but it would seem that our idea of morality is different.

Not at all, my argument was a factual analysis of human nature. A moral argument would be one containing a normative claim. I made no such claim (at least not in the philosophical end of the argument, I've tossed a few around elsewhere), because I believe normative claims are ultimately illogical nonsense. I don't base any of my decision makings on silly beliefs of right and wrong. I base my decisions solely on my knowledge of cause and effect and what will most likely lead to the desired outcome. And I'll go ahead and anticipate your response, that that desire is where the moral root, happiness comes in, so I'll go ahead and get to countering that point before it's made. Desire is a basic driving force in all higher organisms.

A wolf is hungry, it desires food. It eats. Would you argue that the wolf is making a moral judgement by pursuing the food it desires? Of course not. It's satisfying its needs. The same is true of us.

I know it seems that I've slightly contradicted myself in what I've previously stated, but allow me to elaborate. First, I agree with you. I also agree the essential root of most ethics/morality is the "pursuit of happiness". However, I believe that the "pursuit of happiness" is not always self-serving.

This is why, self-serving by definition is:
self-serv·ing (slfsûrvng)
adj.
1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests

Self serving by that definition, and egoism are then two fundamentally different things. What I'm actually arguing for then, is egoism. Not all egoistic actions are in spite of everyone else, often times helping others is just a means to an egoistic end.

Would you call a spider selfless, because by eating the insects in my house, it helps me keep the insect population of my house down? Of course not, It doesn't give a shit about me. It's eating because it wants food. Helping me is just a convenient by-product of pursuing its own goals. The only difference with people is that helping people is more directly linked to our own goals.

I've mentioned this before, but it's applicable to a lot of subjects, so once again, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.



Nowhere in the pyramid will you find anything about the human race as a collective. That is simply because, humans by nature do not care about anybody else, except when doing so allows them to meet their own needs. You don't find a girlfriend because you have an inherent interest in that one random female out of the 3 billion on earth being loved, you find a girlfriend because YOU egoistically want to love and be loved. You don't get a job because you have a inherent interest in an employer somewhere having a skilled employee, you get a job because YOU egoistically want to be a skilled professional in whatever field you're interested in that helps your pursue your self actualization and take home a nice paycheck for what you've done. And as you can see at the top of the pyramid, morality itself is just a part of our own basic selfish psychological needs. Your beliefs are not held in the pursuit of what is best for mankind. Your beliefs are held to help you pursue and hopefully achieve your own egoistic self actualization. We aren't driven by morality, we are driven to morality by our own egoistic desires. We're just as much acting to satisfy our own goals as the hungry spider and wolf I mentioned above. Sometimes like the spider, helping someone else is a part of that personal goal, but other people are not the ultimate reason for our actions any more than keeping my basement insect free is the spider's objective.

[Hobaginator]

There are people who let others carry their weight, and there are people who carry that extra weight. Parts of the system break down because there is undue wear on the gears that do the most work. From an example of a mechanical standpoint (the machine); socialist systems will never work because they give too much oil to the parts that don't do enough work, and not enough oil to the parts that do the most work. Screw equality, what we need is functionality. If you're a hard worker and a good citizen, you will be successful. If you're a lazy, self-entitled, grown-up baby, you will wither away and die. That's how it should be in America. Soon, Obama will be thrown from the steps of the white house and maybe we might get a real president who can undue some of the damage already done. Plain and simple, if you want something... then EARN it. Whiners deserve to burn imho.

[Order]

Order, why couldn't the military scrap its health perk system

They could, it's possible. The fed has already considered not paying enlisted personnel, even though it didn't go through, the implications were made and it represented a fundamental separation between congress and the military community.
If the VA health system were undone, it would not be the first time uncle sam went back on his word. However unjust it would be, the only action I could take is to write a letter to my congressman and make due without.

It could have offerred you higher wages at the time to recompense.

I seriously doubt any compensation would be offered to military personnel or vets if the military or VA health system were dismantled, especially increased pay.
One of the best way to keep young enlisted personnel out of trouble during their time off is by limiting their cash on hand.

Also, Australia is not socialist. Please stop calling it that.

What are they?
I honestly don't know how they classify their style of government, especially considering that most Aussies I talked to about politics when I visited stated that they felt like their government was slowly shifting to socialism.

you're going to run out of adjectives

Impossible,
If english lets me down in the task of creating new insults, I'll use synonyms from other languages.

Furthermore, and this is important because it refutes a central tenet of your thesis (that collective provision of healthcare dooms an economy), Australia never even entered (the most recent) recession.

You may notice that my arguement is 3-pronged:

1.
There is no moral justification to weigh out which supports universal health care in America.

2.
It is contradictory to the American philosophy.

3.
It is a system inwhich more money is put in then ever comes out, meaning it is extremely profitable to the fed. Specifically, the fed wants this program because it would allow for greater control of the American people through posessing more of an individual's financial freedom.

None of these points mention recession. Furthermore, Australia isn't in "recession" because when we compaire cost of living between them and a country which *is* in a recession...

1 AUD = 1.0281 USD

1 litre of gasoline in Australia will apparently cost about 1.46AUD

3.785 litres in a gallon

1 gallon of gasoline in Aus costs about 5.53 AUD which is about 5.68 USD, where as in the US which *is* in a recession one gallon of gasoline costs about 2.87 USD (as I am looking out my window at the gastation across the street now).

I would get into the price of foods like meat, fastfood, milk, etc... but I don't give that much of a crap about how F'd up the whole stockmarket money conversion, worth of the dollar BS works.
All I know is this "recession" has nothing to do with universal healthcare, however, expanding the size and cost of the fed will not improve a nation's economy. We have seen this proven over and over.

If you would like to blow my standing out of the water entirely, it might help to actually fire a shot in my direction, Alpha.

[Alpha]

Alright, do you want to answer the only real question I asked? Why do you suport one system of collective healthcare provision (this military health scheme thing, which I assume you pay into as you serve, to claim at the conclusion of service if needed), and not another?

[Sasquatch]

First things first.

Heartless Angel, keep doing what you're doing. You're the biggest voice of reason and logic in this thread.

Order, shut the **** up. You're not being prideful, you're being arrogant. What's especially comedic is how you try to boast about your service without knowing what an actual combat Soldier does, without any experience in combat, without ever having to fire a weapon in anger (or anywhere other than a range, for that matter). Sure, you've earned your benefits. Shut up about them, because there are those that have earned much more than you have, by actually being badass instead of just bullshitting about how dangerous their job was on an anonymous video game forum. You're not helping yourself, and you're not helping the cause which you argue for. So shut up and sit down, REMF.

This whole thread is a joke. Just get it closed and have done with it. This isn't a debate about a topic, it's thinly veiled insults one after another and it's a bloody disgrace. I'm embarrassed reading it.

Then either contribute to it, or stay away from it. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Order, why couldn't the military scrap its health perk system (which, admittedly, I know very little about)? It could have offerred you higher wages at the time to recompense. Why do you support one form of collective provision and not another?

While many non-combat troops (which, let's face it, are the vast majority of military) would probably support that, there are two main issues with it. The first being that combat is obviously a dangerous job, and a country wouldn't find many people willing to do it if they knew that they wouldn't receive medical care for the injuries sustained in said combat. The second being that a country has a moral obligation to provide medical care, at the very least, to those who have given their health in service to that country's military.

Either way, servicemembers voluntarily enroll with the VA and military insurance. They are not forced. Employers that offer insurance benefits cannot force their insurance on employees, it must be voluntary.

Sasquatch, do you fight for your country or do you fight for a salary?

Anybody who enlists in the military for purely financial reasons is either extremely stupid or too incompetent to hold any civilian job skills. Enlisted military pay is crap, especially considering the jobs it takes to earn it.

To be fair, nowadays money is motivation for almost everything. Im well aware of what my taxes go toward, but I dont have a problem that its going toward healthcare. Its comforting knowing I dont have to worry about shelling out $50,000 for some surgery I might need in future.

Then why don't you just get your own insurance, and you won't have to worry about it anyway?

I think the reasons why Australia's healthcare system is the best in the world are obvious.

Australia's healthcare system is nowhere near the best in the world, unless you factor in availability for out-of-pocket cost. If you make a large portion of your judgement on how socialized something is, of course the more socialized system is going to be rated higher.

The world needs ditchdiggers and people to clean up toilets and floors. What happens to them when they need treatment? You're pretty much saying that they should have chosen a better profession in order to pay for medical expenses.

I'm saying that they should be responsible enough to budget their money properly to include medical insurance.

All I can say is that I hope that if you guys need some sort of medical attention one day that you dont go broke.

I won't, because I'm not a bum without medical insurance. It's a pretty simple concept. I won't go broke over a surgery for the same reason I won't go broke over a vehicle accident -- I'm responsible enough to plan for possible future problems by paying for insurance, so if something bad happens and I need to pay a large amount of money (for surgery or a new vehicle), I will be covered.

Honestly, You just said you're recieving free treatment because you were in the military? What entitles you to this over someone who injures themself in any other workplace? You're just as bad as these "leeches" you're talking about.

Combat troops, at least, have a much riskier job than people in "other workplaces". And people injured in any workplace will have their medical bills payed by their employer. They'll even be paid for the time they can't work (it's called "workmen's compensation", or "workers' comp"). Being employed by the federal government is no different.

But theres very few dolebludgers in our society, so perhaps it isn't an option poverty 'because of war' stricken America can afford to consider. If America stopped wasting their tax dollars on war then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess...

Yeah, because all those little brown people, screw 'em, they don't deserve things like education, communications, clean water, or women's rights. Or maybe you simply overestimate how much the United States spends on its overseas military endeavors.

The words: "for free" aren't anywhere in there. You know why? Because the argument sounds good when it has a loophole. You're right, if someone goes into the ER after a car accident, that person is taken care of [almost] immediately. That's great, but no one really talks about the bill they get in the mail later, do they? No.

The words "for free" shouldn't be anywhere in there -- and if they were, it would be false anyway. (Do I need to explain the difference between "free" and "taxpayer-funded"?) Everybody in America will receive necessary care, period. But it is nobody's responsibility but our own to provide for our own wellbeing -- and that includes paying the people that provide us services. It's not my responsibility to pay for your medicine, just like it's not your responsibility to pay for my vehicle, food, housing, or anything else.

I would also like to add as a side note that I know a lot of people who are in the medical field (myself included) that are in it because they would like to help others.

Of course they would. But if doctors didn't make much more money than janitors, how many people would strive through college and medical school, accruing debt the entire way, in the hopes of being a doctor? Janitors and waiters help others, too.

Therefore, you just argued in a moral way, but it would seem that our idea of morality is different.

Are you referring to morals or ethics? The two are separate entities.

[Hobaginator]

Alright, do you want to answer the only real question I asked? Why do you suport one system of collective healthcare provision (this military health scheme thing, which I assume you pay into as you serve, to claim at the conclusion of service if needed), and not another?

Because military healthcare only serves military veterans, not lazy sacks of crap who leech off of the system. You have to have served at least a full term and have been honorably discharged to take advantage of this benefit -- and that requires some blood, a lot of sweat and I'm sure a few manly tears. Some vets come out of the military with permanent, lifelong injuries. They have earned healthcare.

Obamacare is specifically designed to provide health care to people who don't work. They haven't earned it. They haven't earned it. ALPHA - HE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION ALREADY. THEY HAVEN'T EARNED IT.

Honorable discharge from the military = earned it.

[Alpha]

Okay, so you acknowledge that a system of collective healthcare is A) Feasible when everyone contributes to a minimum level, and B) That people may contribute more or less than others, but are still entitled to equal care.

Thus, the ONLY real reason you do not support universal healthcare is because sone people do not earn it. I interpret this as, 'unemployed people do not pay taxes, why should they get free healthcare'.

My problem with that persepective is that I do not see the be-all and end-all of soneone's existence as what they do on weekdays between 9 and 5. I think, through virtue of being a person (or, more accurately, a citizen), then they 'earn' a minimum level of care. Being unemployed (or, 'earning too little to afford private healthcare') does not preclude being a valued member of a family, community, country. You can be a fine and upstanding member of society and yet be unable to aggord healthcare. You may bot be lazy at all. Indeed, there are very wealthy people who would be unable to work three jobs over 60 hours, attepmt to feed and educate your children, while raising them to be fine and upstanding persons of character and creativity.

Moreover, very few people do not pay tax. Here (because IDK about other countries in this regard), those who recieve benefits pay tax on them. Then, when they spend their benefits, they pay a goods and services tax, possibly an excise tax, probably a road user charge if they drive or take a bus, and so on. There are very few people who are genuinely lazy or do not contribute. There are very few people who are truly undeserving of a system which you yourself take advantage of and advocate. And even if there are undeserving people, I do not think that the poor-deserving should be sacrificed to punish the poor-undeserving.

[Hobaginator]

There are very few people who are truly undeserving of a system which you yourself take advantage of and advocate. And even if there are undeserving people, I do not think that the poor-deserving should be sacrificed to punish the poor-undeserving.

What system do I take advantage of and advocate? Veteran's benefits? I've never served, nor do I take advantage of the benefits. I advocate the system because an honorable discharge from the military is a measurable level of work. Going beyond that minimum is met with additional rewards.

I see no reason why a citizen in decent health shouldn't meet the minimum levels of work required to pay for their own health care, that is unless they are injured BECAUSE of their work... but we have worker's comp for that. Worker's comp can be earned, but it usually requires a trial by jury to prove, and it is paid by the company that is responsible for your injury usually through their insurance. I know first hand about this, because I injured my back while I was putting out a massive workload to compensate for a skeleton assembled night shift crew that left me doing 3 people's jobs (heavy lifting) and am currently using legal methods to prove that it happened at work. I'm not whining about how life's not fair and leeching off of a flawed system like universal healthcare, though I easily could wait and let the hard working citizens of the USA pay for it. If you don't see the difference between what is earned, what is owed, and forcing money from people's pockets then you must be one of the lazy ones. Hard workers quickly learn the value of their wages -- especially anybody serving in the military.

[Rowan]

I get where they are coming from, I really do. You pay your way, dont expect others to pay for you. I agree. So Alpha's taxed $400 per year for healthcare, im taxed $400 per year healthcare. We both need medical care. I recieve it for free and alpha recieves it for free. Is this fair?


@order+hobb.
Please, tell us more about how you're military heroes?

[Hobaginator]

@order+hobb.
Please, tell us more about how you're military heroes?

When did I ever claim to be a military hero? I'm not. I don't claim to be. I already stated that I've never served in the military. I have the upmost respect for those who have, especially combat actives or vets. There are a lot of fakes, and I'm not one of them. Don't ever accuse me of that again.

I've tried to join the Marine Corps three times since I was 17, but the guys upstairs read my medical records and gave me the stamp I didn't want. Does that mean that I'm not good enough? I don't think so. I'm just a civillian who does his best to serve his country. I've taken quite a liking to the fire/rescue service, and when my back heals I'll be riding a BRT into all sorts of exciting danger.

Rowan, you're an idiot for assuming that I claim to be a war hero. Get your facts straight before you come at me with stupid BS.

I get where they are coming from, I really do. You pay your way, dont expect others to pay for you. I agree. So Alpha's taxed $400 per year for healthcare, im taxed $400 per year healthcare. We both need medical care. I recieve it for free and alpha recieves it for free. Is this fair?

Yes, in a hypothetical two-person system where both people are paying exactly equal shares, the healthcare system is ideal. However, in reality, a country has more than two producer-consumer citizens and not everybody is producing as much as they're consuming. That's why the system is flawed. Does that make sense? Well, I mean, can you understand that? I laid it out in as simple terms as I could, in order to accomidate your apparent learning disability.

[Martin]

Then either contribute to it, or stay away from it. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I'll contribute to it when you stop insulting one another. The mudslinging is nothing short of childlike, and the very fact this kind of rubbish is in ID stops people other than the same seven or eight that always post here from bothering. Intellectual? What a farce. I'm done.

[Rowan]

not everybody is producing as much as they're consuming.

What, and its better to pay for a healthcare plan that you might never use? Its the same thing here except the poor who cant afford it wont die. And you would consider that unfair and them to be 'leeches' of society. There's a reason our economy shits on yours, I wouldn't be questioning our way of doing things, because they are working well. Things could be better, yeah sure. But there's no such thing as a perfect system.



Also, Its obvious you're content to be a jerk, hence the "proudly wearing my ban rating". I really couldn't care what you think.

[OceanEyes28]

Sorry I'm late to the party!

Anyway, I'd like to keep this thread open so you can keep debating, but let's continue to do so intelligently, without any comments on who sucks what, k?

Cause I'll warn ya! Yes I will! Aboobooboo


Thaaaanks.

[Hobaginator]

The simple fact of the matter is that the obamacare healthcare bill is nothing more than a money making scheme disguised as a guardian angel bill. If you look at the figures, you will realize that the amount of money that goes into it far exceeds the amount payed back out to the citizens who need medical care. The layman is going to think "well, doctors do make a lot of money..." that's exactly the thought process the socialist party is banking on. The truth is that it's one more way to tax money out of our pockets before we ever even see it. It's a classic pyramid scheme designed to make you believe you are going to get more out of it than you put in, or at the very least break even. Wrong. Guarantee it's not even 90%, and on a national level, one percent of the population's total contribution makes a world of difference. It's the socialist party money grab and we're along for the ride. The only thing we can do to protect the constitution is to vote republican and hope that we get a real candidate.

Some of you make think universal healthcare is one more way for Uncle Sam to get America out of the financial slump, but that's never going to happen so long as our federal reserve bank is controlled by a private 3rd party profiteer. This country's economy has been doomed ever since Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. We're using funny money, because every time we need more currency the Federal Reserve charges us interest, putting us further in debt that we have no way to pay off except for profit through the foreign market (capitolism).