Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

Yeah, sure. Which is why, I suppose, my dual citizenship (Canada and US) aunt and uncle are appalled that we are contemplating a National Health Care system. They claim that the Canada system is great for minor health care problems, but for the more serious stuff, they rely on the private health care that the US provides, stating that it has much higher quality health care.

I forgot to add that they also commented that our health care system is timely, in that if something needs to be looked at/tested/etc., it's done much quicker here than in Canada. (Their words, not mine)

[DuncanONeil]

I forgot to add that they also commented that our health care system is timely, in that if something needs to be looked at/tested/etc., it's done much quicker here than in Canada. (Their words, not mine)

I have heard the same thing from Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen!

[Lion]

I have heard the same thing from Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen!

Here's another Canadian citizen who is happy with his healthcare system. Who has seen a family relative admitted almost immediately when something seemed wrong, and was monitored all night, and then admitted when the doctors were concerned.

And once it was all over, we walked out of the lobby, the only expense was the parking, our concern was to move on, not to look back.


I don't know what your point was by saying that there is an upset Canadian regarding the healthcare system, but I can tell you that I've met a lot of Canadians, a lot who are happy, and a few, understandably, that are annoyed with problems that plague our system.

It works for us, we don't have a huge military budget, that is proportionatly about 8 times larger then ours, we care about different things.


There has been such a huge noise about public healthcare recently, and it would be nice for the people so opposed to it to give some sort of solution to the problem of so many uninsured, rather then talk about how the government is turning some sort of communist regime. Public healthcare might not work for US, but now that the debate is on the table, the only thing I've heard from the right is why it can't be done, and nothing else.

What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?


Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

[steelish]

There has been such a huge noise about public healthcare recently, and it would be nice for the people so opposed to it to give some sort of solution to the problem of so many uninsured, rather then talk about how the government is turning some sort of communist regime. Public healthcare might not work for US, but now that the debate is on the table, the only thing I've heard from the right is why it can't be done, and nothing else.

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.

What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?

You make it sound as if you believe America has the highest rate of deaths from cancer, heart disease, or other sicknesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?

I know what you will say. It's for their own good. It's for the good of others because if they had health insurance, they would get care when needed, etc. However, how is that any different than forcing someone to stop smoking? How about if you stood behind someone who was overweight and forced them to run on the treadmill and monitored their eating? That would be well and good if someone WANTED that done to them, but if they didn't, it would be akin to slavery.

[DuncanONeil]

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.
You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?

I can see that you understand the fallacy here. Many of the uninsured CHOOSE to not have insurance. A significant portion do not need insurance. Even the plans Congress is demanding only solve the insurance problem for less than half the people THEY say are uninsured.

Why does everyone that supports this mess of a plan think this is the only way to change the status quo? Why is it that these same people have not heard of the other options?

[Lion]

Here's an idea...how about if the government covers ONLY the uninsured? As with welfare, once you have employment and can be covered that way, they can take the person off the government run program. That way, those of us who are happy with what we have can be left alone.

That I appreciate, good idea, one that people can build on.

What's the point of spending billions to protect Americans through military means if Cancer, heart disease, or some other sickness can kill them at higher rates then terrorism ever could?

You make it sound as if you believe America has the highest rate of deaths from cancer, heart disease, or other sicknesses. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't infer anything, what I say is what I mean. I never said anything about highest death rates among the world, I said that terrorism, including the 3000+ who died in 01, does not kill as many people compared to sickness. Yet hundreds of billions are spent on wars, and a fraction of that is spent on research, or preventative care or any other sort of healthcare solution.

Next time, please read what I've said carefully. I tried sarcasm in one of these threads and found it quite offensive and I make every attempt not to use it again, and stay as close to facts.

You just said it yourself...by CHOICE! That is the only reason the number jumps higher. Why include that number? Why force someone to get health insurance if they don't want it?

Yes, I said by choice. Please read on....

Some conservatives say that the number is 11 million, but the number of uninsured, either by choice or due to lack of money is around 30 million. Taking the conservative guess of 11 million, what is your solution for their healthcare? Do they deserve help even?

So to clarify (since it seems you missed the point of that particular sentence) is that there are 11 million people there, that is if the conservative guess is correct. I ignored the other 19 million when I asked my question "Do they deserve help even?" It's not a loaded question

I know what you will say. It's for their own good. It's for the good of others because if they had health insurance, they would get care when needed, etc. However, how is that any different than forcing someone to stop smoking? How about if you stood behind someone who was overweight and forced them to run on the treadmill and monitored their eating? That would be well and good if someone WANTED that done to them, but if they didn't, it would be akin to slavery.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I like healthcare for everyone, but I'm not as stupid to believe that I am correct in believing that my opinion is what is best for a country not my own. I can be wrong, and the only way I can either re-enforce or alter my opinion is by challenging the other side's points.

I think health coverage for all is like public education for all. Your analogy with the overweight person, or the slavery comparison is your opinion, and I can respectfully disagree. So the point of my previous post: What should you do about those people (11 million by conservative estimates) who don't have health insurance because they simply can not? Your first point answered that question nicely, are you willing to pay a little more tax, or cut military or other spending to fund that? Would it work with all Americans?


By the way, slavery was a lot worse then paying some extra taxes. I've seen people in Pakistan live under bonded labour, and the situation of their lives was the saddest thing I have ever seen. I can tell you right now, as a taxpayer who pays into the government run healthcare system, there is simply no comparison.

[DuncanONeil]

"I don't infer anything, what I say is what I mean. I never said anything about highest death rates among the world, I said that terrorism, including the 3000+ who died in 01, does not kill as many people compared to sickness. Yet hundreds of billions are spent on wars, and a fraction of that is spent on research, or preventative care or any other sort of healthcare solution."

I got booted in mid comment so some of it is lost.
The "(t)otal expenditures for U.S. medical research have doubled in the past 10 years to almost $95 billion annually. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30983.php) The data indicates that current expenditures have likely topped 150 billion. Now you can still call that a fraction of, but it is not an insignificant expenditure.A brakedown of ratios was found; "The United States invests over $35 billion annually in medical research. Federal support accounts for about 38 percent of this total, and private industry about half; the rest comes from various public and private sources. Federal support of medical research has also grown substantially: between 1986 and 1995 real federal expenditures on medical research increased by 46 percent, reaching $13.4 billion annually.1 This is more than one fifth of federal outlays on research and development." Since this was in 99 the numbers have to be brought up do date but ratios are likely the same.

[DuncanONeil]

"I think health coverage for all is like public education for all."

Public education for all is not working either The costs keep going up and the product continues to fail. In my school district even the best school can barely manage to graduate 50 percent of a class! And that is with the property tax collecting nearly one billion dollars. Plus contributions from the state and the Feds. all for less than 86,000 students!

[steelish]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I like healthcare for everyone, but I'm not as stupid to believe that I am correct in believing that my opinion is what is best for a country not my own. I can be wrong, and the only way I can either re-enforce or alter my opinion is by challenging the other side's points.

I think health coverage for all is like public education for all. Your analogy with the overweight person, or the slavery comparison is your opinion, and I can respectfully disagree. So the point of my previous post: What should you do about those people (11 million by conservative estimates) who don't have health insurance because they simply can not? Your first point answered that question nicely, are you willing to pay a little more tax, or cut military or other spending to fund that? Would it work with all Americans?

I'm sorry for doing that, and yes, I do believe it would work with all Americans. I think they would be more open to that (right now over 65!% of Americans are against the health care bill).