Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

Sounds like negative propganda to me....

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS

Edited for web-space... The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

Fair enough... what's the alternative then? Leave things the way they are and we have millions of Americans who can not afford to get sick, millions of our seniors who can't afford to eat well on a daily basis because they're paying $50.00 for a pill they need to take daily and millions of children who never get check-ups that could potentially catch a disease/problem before it becoems fatal.

So, what are the Conservatives going to do to fix it?

Statement: Spelljammer has reinitiated his "sock campaign."

Imperative: Proceed to banning phase at once.

Yeah, look at all those countries out there with socialized healthcare! Look at how they've traded in their birks for jack boots. Look at Canada and France, they're fast on the way to goose stepping!

There isn't one ****ing bit of truth to the slippery slope argument when it comes to universal healthcare.

I always find the argument that socialized medicine is a fast track to a dictatorship to be totally unfounded. It doesn't even make sense.

What is more interesting is that every person with any acclaim or credability; be they a writer, actor or normal citizen who has spent a lot of time in France, never have anything negative to say about their health care system.

It's like the "Hitler Card"...

On a happy note, Conservatives will soon not be able to use France in a derogatory way. i.e. "Move to France you Liberals, rable, rable, rable!". Sarkozy is somewhat pro-American, so we can start calling "Freedom Fries" French Fries again.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons
hysterical

I always have to laugh when i hear someone say the government is going to get all up with itself, and start trying to control it's citizens.

Like they don't already?


Conservatives want government sponsored religion, but not healthcare?

Answer:

"This country was founded by Christians and on Christian principles!"

Originally posted by Robtard
Answer:

"This country was founded by Christians and on Christian principles!"

then the christian principles of love and charity should be kicking in any minute now, right?

lol, what about "turn the other cheek" or "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone"?

I think it was a Christian who first said those... It might have been a Jew though

what a longwinded and completely nonsensical rant. why is it that kmc's most clueless idiots always have the most to say (type)?

btw: feceman wins the 'guess the sock troll' prize (that prize being a post of validation, that post of validation being this post)

Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for another's health insurance through increased taxes?

Quotation:


Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070820/hl_afp/healthcancereurope_070820231752

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons

I just snorted milk up my nose. With lines like that you could be a comedian.

But out of interest could one person who uses this kind of argument give me an example of a western nation with Health-care that has ended up as you describe?

Out of the many European nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand... which of them has ended up like some Dystopian night-mare? Especially considering some of them have had it in place for a long, long time? If anything the way you describe it indicates a lack of understanding about how the system works, and works well, in such nations.

Certainly in Australia health care is available for all, thus insuring no person is left out in the cold. But private health insurance is still available and popular - perceived better and quicker services, access to electives etc. But for the people who can't afford it they need not worry about being unable to afford medical care when they need it.



I am happy for some of my taxes to go, through the Federal budget, to healthcare, in the knowledge that if I don't have private health insurance I will still be looked after if I get ill. In fact I like the idea even more then Australia buying US militray hand-me-downs. In fact really I just like the idea that in some small way the people of my nation are playing a part in each others well-being.




Ahhh - what is the relevance of that? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact the study dealt with a goodly portion of Europe that ranges from the very high quality to the very low who are naturally going to drag down the percentage - you know, all those happy former East Bloc countries that have been spending years getting back on their feet.

I think that figure is more indicative of the fact Europe is a mixed bag of nations rather then somehow showing universal health-care actually leads to worse chances of survival.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS


By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government.

Whaaaat?!

It's Okay, just take the blue ones.......

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I am happy for some of my taxes to go, through the Federal budget, to healthcare, in the knowledge that if I don't have private health insurance I will still be looked after if I get ill. In fact I like the idea even more then Australia buying US militray hand-me-downs. In fact really I just like the idea that in some small way the people of my nation are playing a part in each others well-being.
Statement: This is a non-answer.

Quotation:

Private companies have no ****ing interest in the public good or health. All they care about is providing great health care for themselves and skimming as much money off of premiums into their own pockets as possible. Hell, considering all the preexisting conditions that you can't get coverage for i wouldn't be surprised if there are companies who covertly refuse to cover blacks and jews due to heart disease and cancer. I've dealt with these ass clowns before. YOU DON'T have the freedom to choose your own doctor, he has to be on your company plan. Your doctor DOESN'T have the right to treat you in the way he deems necesary till it's agreed upon by some bastard in an insurance company with no medical training who'd rather buy blow than save a life. The only possible way the current system could be fair and equitable is if it were legal for regular citizens to hire blackwater and put out contract hits on the CEO's and boardmembers of health insurance companies that deny people's claims, thus maiming or killing them and their children. And considering that Bush and Grover Norquist are really getting a boner about annhilitaing medicare, medicade, and S-CHIP, hence throwing literally 40% of the country in a situation where they and their kids can't get any coverage anywhere for any condition, the previous nightmare scenario will either become necesary or this country will literally collapse do to mass death, capital flight, mass emigration, and probable civil war. I'd rather have socialized medicine and an equitable society, than a dying people taking arms and going robsepierre on executives cause that's the only logical conclusion to our current trend.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: This is a non-answer.

Because I didn't shake with fury at the idea of legal abortions while the evil government takes my money through taxes and, of all things, spends some of it the health and well-being of my countrymen?

If I was the type to be against women having the right to abort then I don't see how it matters what the government spends my money on - be it health-care, being it military, be it cultural or trade. I could say:

Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for anther's education through increased taxes?

Or:

Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for anther's training as a solider through increased taxes?

And so on. The answer then as I see it is "there is something wrong with disallowing abortions as they are a women's rights, and unless you have a problem with your tax being spent on anything at all it is not an infringement of rights for some of it to be spent on health care."

As far as I know you pay taxes anyway, with or without it. And seeing as how I, and the people in Australia and other government supplied health care countries aren't living in poverty due to "increased taxes to pay for other peoples health insurance" then I can only imagine that scare tactic is slightly exaggerated.



That is a non-answer. If the article was linking universal health care as the cause for that discrepancy/improvement then it would be relevant. As it is all it is revealing is, you know, Europe has some damn good health care, and some poorer quality health care - you know, comparing former East European bloc countries to Sweden or Germany. And that some countries are improving while others aren't doing as good as they should be, especially considering the amount they spend on health.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

I am happy for some of my taxes to go, through the Federal budget, to healthcare, in the knowledge that if I don't have private health insurance I will still be looked after if I get ill.

That's awesome...but, why don't you just organize yourself with others willing to pay for healthcare and do that....while those that don't want to don't.

And if you feel charitable why don't you pay for those that can't afford it as well.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for another's health insurance through increased taxes?

Don't conflate your moral issues with abortion, with the matter of socialized medicine. Again, if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?

Originally posted by Devil King
if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?

s-some people don't think the state is a moral entity?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's awesome...but, why don't you just organize yourself with others willing to pay for health care and do that....while those that don't want to don't.

And if you feel charitable why don't you pay for those that can't afford it as well.

Well I must admit that sounds a bit petulant and childish.

My taxes will be going towards schooling for people who can't afford to send the kids to expensive private schools, cheaper public transport for those who don't use a car (or can't afford a car+fuel), welfare for those people who are unable to work, can't find a job, have an injury or disability and so on and so on.

So do we have a good reason why health care is such a horrible, such an outrageous, such a gut churning destination for taxes? Or is it merely that knee jerk reaction whenever taxes are mentioned (the good old scare tactic of "my opponents policies will raise taxes! Fear for they will make you live in a card board box to pay for things that will never benefit you!)

The whole point of taxes is everybody pays (by rights not more then they can afford), and the taxes should mostly be being spent, by way of the Budget, on things beneficial to the nation and its citizens. Once you get into the what you are suggesting it breaks down. Why then couldn't people say "we don't support the military, I don't want my taxes going there" or "my kid is in a private school, why should my taxes go to public schools?" It doesn't work. So unless there is some pressing reason why health care should be separate from such such things "if you feel charitable why don't you pay for those that can't afford it as well" really is a pointless contribution. You either have health care and everyone contributes or you don't. I have no problem contributing (despite the fact I have private healthcare), and it seems most people in Australia don't. Nor New Zealand.

As such my point stands that I have np problem with some of the tax I would be paying anyway going towards public health care. And to be honest it would seem that the people who want to pay for everyones health care are largely doing so. Otherwise we wouldn't vote for those political parties who want to improve the system and make it even fairer, as well as putting even more money into it. Crazy thing democracy eh? Judging the policies of political parties such as their plans for health care?

Because maybe it is a cultural thing, but in terms of Australia it seems to be accepted as a useful, necessary part of government care for its voting public, plenty of who, strangely enough, don't plan to get sick, have accidents or develop illnesses that need treatments outside their price range but often do.

Originally posted by inimalist
s-some people don't think the state is a moral entity?

I'm guessing you're pointing out what a slippery slope the "moral" argument is. But, I don't understand why people can bring their morals into the argument, while totally ignoring that people in the United States are dying from infected cavities.

It just doesn't make any sense.

(to me, that's another level of this argument. why is dental care considered a luxury and not included in general health care.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So do we have a good reason why health care is such a horrible, such an outrageous, such a gut churning destination for taxes? Or is it merely that knee jerk reaction whenever taxes are mentioned

no, it's that conservative mentality that "someone is getting something they didn't earn!". It's the classic tactic of turning the have's against the have-nots.

As Roosevelt said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm guessing you're pointing out what a slippery slope the "moral" argument is. But, I don't understand why people can bring their morals into the argument, while totally ignoring that people in the United States are dying from infected cavities.

It just doesn't make any sense.

(to me, that's another level of this argument. why is dental care considered a luxury and not included in general health care.)

I think we agree in application, however, to me personally, it is more morally incorrect for the state to tell me I have to give them money than for someone to, of their own actions, be unable to afford their treatment.

I do agree with universal health (and dental if we are on the topic) but not for moral reasons. Morally, I don't see someone else's health as my responsibilty, however, pragmatically, the marginal cost to me to have that person get care benefits not just that person, but myself, because there isnt another poverty case medical bill bankruptcy family.

EDIT: not necessarily a slippery slope, I don't think public health or socialism itself lead directly to despotism, but I, for some strange reason, cannot justify governmental authority morally in any way that I find intellectually satisfactory.

Originally posted by Devil King
no, it's that conservative mentality that "someone is getting something they didn't earn!". It's the classic tactic of turning the have's against the have-nots.

Of course that sounds harsh so people come up with interesting theories like Universal health care leading to fascist states and so on. Then they can say "oh, we are actually protecting your rights and freedoms by not making health care a government concern." They should just be honest and stop chucking up things like "oh if you are happy for your taxes to go to it why don't you just pay for it all."



It is sad to see that wise words can apparently be so ignored in this modern age.



Exactly. Morality can enter into, but it doesn't need to. There are perfectly good, practical reasons why such a system is beneficial both on an individual level and on a national level. On the most basic level the government having a duty of care of its citizens. If people get sick and don't have the ability to access what they need to get better then the government it failing its number one charge - its own people.

For my view in Australia the chief use of tax should be for the betterment and well-being of nation and thus people with the aim of further improvement and productivity. Hence public schools, apprenticieships, HECS, healthcare etc - allowing people to get the medical care they need when they need it thus allowing them to continue to be healthy, productive members of society, allowing people to get the educxation they need thus allowing them to be educated, productive members of soceity.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we agree in application, however, to me personally, it is more morally incorrect for the state to tell me I have to give them money than for someone to, of their own actions, be unable to afford their treatment.

I do agree with universal health (and dental if we are on the topic) but not for moral reasons. Morally, I don't see someone else's health as my responsibilty, however, pragmatically, the marginal cost to me to have that person get care benefits not just that person, but myself, because there isnt another poverty case medical bill bankruptcy family.

EDIT: not necessarily a slippery slope, I don't think public health or socialism itself lead directly to despotism, but I, for some strange reason, cannot justify governmental authority morally in any way that I find intellectually satisfactory.


I'm afraid I don't understand how we agree in application, but not intent. The state does not need to be a moral institution. I guess Robtard and I took the conversation off topic a bit. Morals really have little to do with it, in my opinion. It's a matter of a government of, by and for the people, not being interested in the people. In their health or their standard of living.

It comes down to that, not this red herring crap about people getting something they don't deserve. People who consider the policies and procedures of this government need to realize we're all in this country together. The "getting something for nothing" argument is simply social stratification.

It isn't really a matter of providing the basics for people. I wish it were that simple. It's more a matter of everyone agreeing on what the "basics" are to begin with.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm afraid I don't understand how we agree in application, but not intent. The state does not need to be a moral institution. I guess Robtard and I took the conversation off topic a bit. Morals really have little to do with it, in my opinion. It's a matter of a government of, by and for the people, not being interested in the people. In their health or their standard of living.

It comes down to that, not this red herring crap about people getting something they don't deserve. People who consider the policies and procedures of this government need to realize we're all in this country together. The "getting something for nothing" argument is simply social stratification.

It isn't really a matter of providing the basics for people. I wish it were that simple. It's more a matter of everyone agreeing on what the "basics" are to begin with.

I misunderstood the way you were making the argument, my bad I thought you were saying that we should give people free medicine because it is the "right" thing to do, which imho is as convincing as saying that they shouldn't have it because it's the "wrong" thing to do. Imho, "right" or "wrong" are words that should never be used in politics, because it assumes an immesurable dimension on which something is being assessed.

I agree with the red herring stuff. Regardless of how I feel personally and morally, I'd rather live in a productive collective arrangement than in the despotism of my own personal labour.

I must question if there are even these "basics". That seems to assume that people are owed something by just having been born, which again is a moral argument and not very politically salient. However, since context and wording are so much fun to argue about, lets call them "benefits" of living in a nation productive enough that it can start worrying about the more humanistic and social issues within it's own borders. That is really splitting hairs, but might help tell you where I am comming from.

I think a country's citizens should have access to medical treatment, regardless of their income or lack there, but one of my concerns with un-privatizing the system and handing over medical-power to the government is "specialist".

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

Originally posted by Robtard

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

the same thing that stops all of our great Canadian doctors from moving south and becoming rich...






























which is to say, nothing

Originally posted by inimalist
That seems to assume that people are owed something by just having been born,

No, no, no. They aren't owed something because they're born. They're owed something by their government, which need not exist unless to benefit those who agree to live under it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think a country's citizens should have access to medical treatment, regardless of their income or lack there, but one of my concerns with un-privatizing the system and handing over medical-power to the government is "specialist".

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

what kept them from doing it before doctors started earning a ridiculous amount of money?

Why do they feel entitled to a huge sallary? Because they spent a huge amount of money on becoming doctors.

Make education free...and we'll eliminate these peoblems all together.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

But of course, having free national health service surely leads to dictatorship. The worst thing about hitler has always been his policy on free health care.

Sponsoring wars around the globe and using tax money to build weapons cannot and is not dictatorship. What really leads to dictatorship is healthcare.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9965/fascismcc4.jpg

N

We have that in Norway and both sides (the left and the right) are in favour of keeping it this way, more or less. We don't have to worry about paying any hospital bills and everyone gets the treatment they're intitled to have. I can't see anything wrong with that. We all help each other and everyone gets their treatment. Even the rich in our country wants it to be like this. Few people are poor here, probably because they don't have to worry about hospital or school bills. And I'm willing to pay for that. It's cheaper for me to have them treated, than having them sick and not capeable of working.

Regards, Yvonne

Originally posted by yvonnekarate
We have that in Norway and both sides (the left and the right) are in favour of keeping it this way, more or less. We don't have to worry about paying any hospital bills and everyone gets the treatment they're intitled to have. I can't see anything wrong with that. We all help each other and everyone gets their treatment. Even the rich in our country wants it to be like this. Few people are poor here, probably because they don't have to worry about hospital or school bills. And I'm willing to pay for that. It's cheaper for me to have them treated, than having them sick and not capeable of working.

Regards, Yvonne

Go back to your side of the godless iron curtain, COMMIE!





A very good point! Those lazy welfare bums might be able to work if they weren't dying in the gutters because they have no healthcare.

Originally posted by inimalist
the same thing that stops all of our great Canadian doctors from moving south and becoming rich...

which is to say, nothing

That form of system is already in place in Canada, people are more likely to flow with a preexisting system. In the U.S., it would be a BIG change.

Originally posted by Devil King


what kept them from doing it before doctors started earning a ridiculous amount of money?

Why do they feel entitled to a huge sallary? Because they spent a huge amount of money on becoming doctors.

Make education free...and we'll eliminate these peoblems all together.

We're talking about the present; how the system is set up now, as noted above, BIG change is difficult.

Free education opens the door to other problems, who's going to pay for the "free education" as nothing is really free. You know this government, things happen at a snails pace, nothing will change if you try and open the flood gates all at once.

Originally posted by Devil King
Don't conflate your moral issues with abortion, with the matter of socialized medicine. Again, if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?
Statement: This is a non-answer.

Originally posted by Devil King
Go back to your side of the godless iron curtain, COMMIE!



Good one. Especially since I'm not a communist. I never was. And I believe what I believe. My religious views are private, but I can say this: I do infact believe in God. Just so you know. Actually, Norway has a state church, unlike the US. I don't believe it's right though, to have a state church, but in the name, Norway's a Christan country.



Regards, Yvonne

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because I didn't shake with fury at the idea of legal abortions while the evil government takes my money through taxes and, of all things, spends some of it the health and well-being of my countrymen?
Statement: No, it was a non-answer because Imperial_Samurai did not answer the question.

Statement: Education and the military are government-funded organizations.

Corollary: Taxes are used to fund those organizations.

Statement: Abortion has only become a woman's right because it has been construed as such.

Statement: Similarly, healthcare is becoming a "right," although FeceMan cannot fathom why.

Clarification: FeceMan can fathom why healthcare is becoming a "right," but FeceMan cannot fathom why it ought to be made into a right.

Statement: FeceMan does not resort to scare tactics.

Statement: The quoted material invalidates Imperial_Samurai's claim that the former Eastern European countries are drastically reducing the overall rates of survival.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: This is a non-answer.

It's a non-answer to a non-issue.

Originally posted by Devil King
It's a non-answer to a non-issue.
Statement: FeceMan asked a legitimate question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Free education opens the door to other problems, who's going to pay for the "free education"

The same people who pay for the free education that people recieve between grades K and 12.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan asked a legitimate question.

It may very well be a legitimate question, but not in regards to this topic.

You want to turn this into an abortion debate, and it's not. We're talking about all healthcare, not just heart transplants.

Originally posted by Devil King
The same people who pay for the free education that people recieve between grades K and 12.

Eductional requirements for grades K through 12 are a lot less cheaper. Compare the salaries of a grade school teacher and a Harvard Professor. E.g., grade school supplies of pens and paper are far cheaper than the high-end medical equipment in universities.

Point is, nothing is really "free" and the more doors you try to open at the same time, the more problems you run into, but you know this.

Originally posted by Robtard
Eductional requirements for grades K through 12 are a lot less cheaper. Compare the salaries of a grade school teacher and a Harvard Professor. E.g., grade school supplies of pens and paper are far cheaper than the high-end medical equipment in universities.

Point is, nothing is really "free" and the more doors you try to open at the same time, the more problems you run into, but you know this.

You don't have to explain to me that "free" is not a reality in this world.

The worlds richest, most bloated nation in history can't pay for free universal education and healthcare? You could pay the same in taxes that you are now and this country could pay for these programs.

Government bloat is the only real issue in all these debates; and nothing is done about it because people actually believe that we'd have to live on 20% of our income.

But, where does all the money we earn go already? It goes to taxes. It goes to healthcare and insurance. It goes to sending our kids to a private school because the tax money we already spend on public schools isn't benefitting the people who are already paying for it, and those below the poverty line aren't benefitting from it at all! We dump tons of money into our gas guzzling cars because the oil lobby has buried any and all hopes for alternative fuels or mass transit.

When the standard of living for everyone raises, the costs of universal healthcare will plummet. This is what I meant earlier when I said the problem begins with what we consider to be the basics for living in this country.

before universal healthcare is implemented. I think we need universal cake. I believe that if every American citizen were allowed free cake we would be happier people. For those who dont like cake can have pie. For those who do not like cake or pie can be deported.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: No, it was a non-answer because Imperial_Samurai did not answer the question.

Because to be perfectly honest it didn't deserve one. You go of on a tangent bringing in your own morality, and what happens with tax money.



Oddly enough... so are hospitals in Australia. And I am fairly sure nurses aren't privately owned. But anyway - once one goes into governments contributing health care then it becomes a government matter.

The things you say seem to indicate you don't really know how it works elsewhere, and unless the US is going to go some wild knew route I could only imagine it would have some similarity with the systems in place in other nations.

So for your educational benefit a simple guide to Australian health care:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/health_care.html



This week on Ripley's Believe it or not: See the strange world of Feceman, where he can't see why people being able to receive health care should be a right, but where a woman's right when it comes to pregnancy is somehow lessened because he deems it "construed as such". And what will we learn? Not to get pregnant in Feceman's world because you have no choices. And definitely don't get sick as he sees no reason why a government should have duty of care to its citizens including making sure they can receive health care when they need it.

Oh, but wait, that was in response to my response. And thus we see Feceman already had his answer, he was just waiting for the excuse to express it.



No, Feceman just vocalises the scare tactics other people have used when it comes to the issue. Good old "make them think they'll be slugged with more tax.".



Well that makes no sense. Nowhere did I say East European countries are reducing the rate of survival, in fact I believe I implied the opposite.

What I did say is it was pointless in the context of this thread as nowhere in the article do they list the reason for the difference in cancer survival rates between the US and Europe as having to do with Universal health care. Rather I pointed out what the article itself implied -that the discrepancy is more to do with the fact Europe is a mixed bag, including nations only really just starting to get into the game again.



Well it doesn't really work like that here. But if Doctors elsewhere are anything like some of the med students I know, then more than a few have drive. While the money is important they like becoming best in their fields, getting published, the idea of becoming "chief of" something, promotion, respect the whole shebang. Sure plenty will be happy being GPs for most of their careers, but there is a sizable core that wants to specialise for whatever reason.

That doesn't really answer the question, why is it morally correct for the government to take money from people who don't need universal health care and use it to give health care to those that want it?

Originally posted by backdoorman
That doesn't really answer the question, why is it morally correct for the government to take money from people who don't need universal health care and use it to give health care to those that want it?

The real question is why is it morally relevant at all? And why is it somehow related to abortion morality? I have stated I perceive it as falling under the duty of care a government owes its citizens.

And you want to go down that path then why is it morally correct for the government to take money from people who don't have children/pay for private schools to pay for public schools? You want to bog yourself down in the morals of taxation and where the money goes be my guest, that is where Feceman is failing - he is making this a question of morals involved with his moral issues, without providing a rational link as to why they should be in the same paragraph.

"why is it wrong to stop abortions but right to take my money to spend on the sick and injured" - I mean really. It isn't your money, it is your tax which the government would be taking anyway to provide a service for numerous people (a large % of the population). They aren't coming into your home and saying "Herb down the road is ill, we need you to go and buy him some medicine." It is just silly.

And unless there is something that sets apart health care from all the others things that a government does with tax money then the "why should my money be spent on something I don't need" doesn't work, because face it, many things done with tax don't personally benefit you.

Because that is what tax is for - the nation and people as a whole, not just little old you or me.

I was not making personal convictions, I just wanted to know why you thought that it was the right thing to do.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I was not making personal convictions, I just wanted to know why you thought that it was the right thing to do.

And as I said I perceive it as a duty of care the government owes to its citizens. And by the by I think if people are paying tax they should know that if circumstances ever put them in a bad way medically the government would have their back if they needed such help. After all, rarely is a person so secure these days they can be assured that never in the future might they suddenly find themselves unable to afford Private Insurance - it happens all the time, people losing jobs, cutting costs.

In addition to practical things which I mentioned a page back about tax being spent in a way that benefits people and nation, and keeping people healthy certainly does that. Having them sick and struggling to afford to get better is neither productive nor efficient.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because to be perfectly honest it didn't deserve one. You go of on a tangent bringing in your own morality, and what happens with tax money.
Declaration: Erroneous.

Statement: FeceMan has seen any number of arguments that argue for the socialization of healthcare as being the morally correct thing to do.

Statement: If Imperial_Samurai will note, the topic is about universal healthcare being "brought upon" Americans, not Australians.

Statement: This is another non-answer.

Statement: This also is a straw man and an argumentum ad hominem.

Statement: Universal healthcare is funded with tax dollars.

Statement: The United States has taxes that do not currently fund universal healthcare.

Statement: The United States uses all tax money as-is, without universal health care.

Conclusion: Taxes will have to be raised to fund universal healthcare.

Quotation:


Statement: FeceMan provided a quotation from the article demonstrating how those nations were not necessarily "dragging down" the percentage of survival rates.

Statement: The European nations have universal healthcare.

Corollary: The lower survival rates may not necessarily be due to some countries lowering the overall survival rates.

Conclusion: The lower survival rates may be due to the system of health care.

Addendum: FeceMan does not believe that socializing healthcare is the solution, as FeceMan realizes that there are numerous problems with socialized healthcare. However, FeceMan also realizes that there are numerous problems with privatized healthcare.

Statement: FeceMan believes that there is a medium between total privatization and total socialization that ought to be reached.

Admission: FeceMan does not know where, exactly, this medium is, nor does he know how to reach it.

Declaration: FeceMan believes that the issue may not be with privatization of healthcare in the United States, but, rather, how the legal system is intertwined with healthcare.

FeceMan, that was an epic post... although, I'm not sure if you ever stated your overall opinion on the matter. And why do you speak like a robot? Statement, Conclusion, Declaration... It's like HK-47 or something.

BTW, I agree with Universal Healthcare, it's used in Britain and all across Europe, and we've been absolutely fine in terms of all that for over 70 years or more.

Statement: FeceMan is indeed mimicking HK-47, though FeceMan cannot give an adequate reason as to why he is doing so.

HK-47 FTW...

Now I'm going to imagine all your posts in his English accent lol

Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: Erroneous.

Statement: FeceMan has seen any number of arguments that argue for the socialization of health care as being the morally correct thing to do.

Yet it was not being discussed as such. Feceman chose to bring morality into it while tying it in with something he has a moral problem with. And as we will note the opening post was not about morality but foolish dystopian predictions of a future with medicare, thus making this a tad bit hypocritical:



It is perfectly relevant as some people's, such as the thread opener, objections to universal health care are based upon misconceptions and ignorance. Unless the US, if it introduced such a system, was going down some totally new path there will be some similarity to existing systems in other countries. Thus look at other systems and point out where exactly the fascism and killer taxes came in.



Well if I was trying to give an answer that might be relevant, but I was not, seeing as how it was some good natured cynical mocking of the person who wishes to turn this into a debate about morality while injecting his anti pro-choice stance.



Every single cent? Shocking, technically that would mean you would be going backward if there wasn't at least a minimal surplus, but anyway. Once again the implication of crushing taxes upon the implication of such a system is unfounded based upon working models in other countries, not all with the US economy. Unless you are implying the US would mess it up some how it is not a significant point of objection.

And looking at some recent economic decisions of the US... well, it isn't like tax increases are unheard of.



Despite no such thing being mentioned? Have you read the article?It is clearly noted that Europe does not have a uniform survival rate due to the variance across the nations that make up Europe. The article put some emphasis on Eastern European nations closing the gap with western European nations - which would indicate lower survival rates in such nations compared to others.

Now if one puts their logical pants on and thinks "now a gap exists between East and West Europe in terms of survival rates, so logically when Europe is looked at, as a whole, that variance is going to reflect in the survival rate as a whole. If one just compared West European survival rates to East European survival rates the figure would likely be different again."

In fact if you look at the quote "The journal called for the development of a "pan-European cancer plan" to promote modern diagnostic and treatment facilities" then it clearly indicates the survival rate could be improved more still with some standardisation across Europe, which seems to support what I have been saying - the figure is low due to the mixed bag that Europe is, including nations that have struggled to get where they are.

Now if you want to quote the part in the article where they link universal health care to the lower survival rates then the US I suggest you do so. Otherwise I reiterate my view that it was a pointless contribution that is less reflective of universal health care then the quality of medical care in varied nations.



And as I have been asking can you identify the problems in the nations that currently have universal health care systems in place in order to clarify the exact faults that make the implementation of such a system in the US so unpalatable, otherwise it just looks like one is saying "I don't like the idea".

There seems to be a weird obsession with disallowing this particular right for economic reasons, without the wish to apply the same logic across all issues that can be dealt with economically. I don't really understand that.

Or at least, without the realisation that such endeavours are impractical, rendering this objection a bit pointless.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Or at least, without the realisation that such endeavours are impractical, rendering this objection a bit pointless.

see, you can't go all next level on this debate. It's too much for people to digest at once.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I've seen any number of arguments that argue for the socialization of healthcare as being the morally correct thing to do.

You're confusing the "right thing to do" with the "christian thing to do".

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet it was not being discussed as such. Feceman chose to bring morality into it while tying it in with something he has a moral problem with. And as we will note the opening post was not about morality but foolish dystopian predictions of a future with medicare, thus making this a tad bit hypocritical:
Statement: This is true.

Statement: Imperial_Samurai chose to engage FeceMan in the question nonetheless.

Statement: FeceMan does not believe that there is fascism or that there are "killer taxes" involved in universal healthcare.

Statement: FeceMan did not wish to turn the debate into one of morality, as FeceMan does not believe that healthcare is a moral issue. However, he did wish for his question to be answered.

Statement: FeceMan maintains that there would have to be either an increase in taxes or the reduction of spending in other important areas of government in order to finance universal healthcare.

Declaration: The issue is not with "killer taxes" but taxes.

Statement: An accurate statement.

Statement: Were the blame put on the universal healthcare system, Imperial_Samurai would undoubtedly proclaim the article as biased.

Definition:


Statement: The quoted statistics show that this is not necessarily true.

Statement: A doctor may not know a patient's particular ailment, but he can certainly say that the patient is exhibiting symptoms indicative of being not-well.

Link: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=270338135202343

Admission: This, as with all the anecdotal evidence for or against universal healthcare, is simply that: anecdotal. The few "extreme" cases are not useful when determining the flaws and positive aspects of universal and privatized healthcare.

Statement: It highlights, however, that there is indeed a problem with universal healthcare.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: This is true.

Statement: Imperial_Samurai chose to engage FeceMan in the question nonetheless.

Did I?

I just made a general statement in regards to taxation as in I don't mind a portion of the tax I pay going to that system. You insisted, and I said it is wrong to stop abortion as it is a women right, whereas there is no such infringement of rights in the government putting a portion of tax into a health care system.

And since rights and morality are not the same thing I was not engaging you in a moral debate.



I was talking about the opening post for Fascism, for you it is the fact in your attempt to make this moral you raised the spectre of taxes.



Your moral question regarding a society that allows abortion and spends money on health care?



Obviously - but Imperial Samura maintains that any increase of tax likely wouldn't be any larger then previous ones that have more questionable motives behind them. And Imperial Samura would ask "are you saying every area taxes are allocated in the US uses them effectively and truly needs every cent?"

Because if you answer no to the latter then "the reduction of spending in other important areas of government in order to finance universal health care" is not nearly as dire. But I like how you say the Government would reduce funding for important areas. Why not unimportant areas?



Thank you.



Incorrect. Hence why Imperial Samura is asking for you to provide evidence from the article that connects Universal health care to the overall European survival rate for cancer.



Then you are going to have to show me your working out because what I am getting:



Ok, now that indicates that survival rates in EE for cancer are lower then in WE, but that EE is improving. Logically then if WE statistically compared to EE, then WE would have a higher survival rate then EE. And if the two are assessed together the statistic is going to naturally be affected by nations at the top and bottom.



Once again - cancer survival rates are not on a uniform level across the country, some nations are better then others. If all of Europe is tested then the end statistic is going to be shaped by the "lower still in Britain and Ireland, and lowest in eastern Europe".



The journal, that published the findings, is calling for this. It would seem to suggest the journal that published the findings believes that the cancer survival rate could be improved still with some standardisation, as it is clear Europe is a mixed bag of good, and not quite as good. Which seems to support what I have been saying - "that the statistics Feceman published indicate what the journal itself is saying, that Europe has a mix of countries, not, as Feceman is trying to suggest, that the statistic is because Europe has many universal health care systems."



Oh indeed, but I dare say it needs to be asked - are universal health care systems proven to exhibit more flaws, more problems then private health care system, and would a universal health care system be markedly inferior or superior to the current system, when comparing with the way systems run in other countries?

Or more indepth "While I recongise any system will have problems, do you have some data or evidence to support the idea that a universal health care system is worse than the current system, and proof that if it were introduced it would be clearly worse then the current system?"

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Did I?

I just made a general statement in regards to taxation as in I don't mind a portion of the tax I pay going to that system. You insisted, and I said it is wrong to stop abortion as it is a women right, whereas there is no such infringement of rights in the government putting a portion of tax into a health care system.

And since rights and morality are not the same thing I was not engaging you in a moral debate.

I was talking about the opening post for Fascism, for you it is the fact in your attempt to make this moral you raised the spectre of taxes.
Statement: As FeceMan has already said, he does not believe that healthcare is a moral issue.

Statement: Any excess taxes would be used to reduce national debt; FeceMan does not know the extent to which government spending goes on "unnecessary" programs.

Quotation:

Statement: The averages for the survival rates of those cancers in eastern Europe are 44.7 percent, 73.9 percent, and 68.0 percent.

Statement: The averages for cancer survival rates across Europe are 47.3 percent and 55.8 percent.

Statement: The lowest percent given in eastern Europe is 2.6 percent lower than the average survival rates across Europe.

Corollary: The eastern Europe cancer survival rates are not significantly reducing the overall cancer survival rate in Europe.

Image:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/08/21/ncancer121.gif

Statement: Such data are subjective.

Evidence: The primary arguments for and against privatized and universal healthcare seem to revolve around expenses, coverage, quality of care, and wait times. The issue is then dependent on the individual's beliefs of healthcare.

Rhetorical Query: Does the individual want healthcare that is more expensive with shorter wait times and higher quality, or does the individual want healthcare that is cheaper with longer wait times and lower quality?

i'd just like to interject that cancer survival rates are a very tricky statistic when it comes to equivalent health care, especially when talking about former Soviet block nations.

Originally posted by Devil King
i'd just like to interject that cancer survival rates are a very tricky statistic when it comes to equivalent health care, especially when talking about former Soviet block nations.

Exactly, but Feceman doesn't seem to think the nature of former East Bloc countries has any real impact on the overall statistics. Apparently nations run into the ground during the Communist years are on pretty much equal footing when it comes to technology and training in the medical field.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: As FeceMan has already said, he does not believe that health care is a moral issue.

Yet he still raised morality.



It is hard to claim the Government would be hacking up the funds of "important areas" if you admit you don't know what extent goes into inflated budgets or "unnecessary" programs.



I don't think you are doing that right, as your chart shows...



Just going by that table in women the difference between the highest ranked and the lowest is 13.8%. In men the difference between the highest and lowest is 23.7%.

In women the top five nations are awfully close to the US, all of them with Universal health care, yet if we put together the European nations in the list what will the end statistic look like? Or do the same with the men.

In addition to the article specifically stating Europe could benefit from a more standardised program which promotes more modern treatment and diagnosis techniques. Once again Feceman is interpreting the date and ignoring what it is actually saying - that Europe has a gap between cancer survival rates depending on which nations one compares which could be rectified with a greater standardisation promoting more modernity in the field by still implying universal health care might be involved, despite no indication as such.



The data is subjective? Or the interpretation of the data?



I would think the real question would be "does the individual want to be able to receive medical attention if they need it even if they can't afford private health care?"

Because I am sure if given the option most people would say "sure, I'd love private health care and the perks it gives" - but can everybody afford it? No. Is there a very large sector of society that can't afford it? Yes. I am almost certain if given your rhetorical question they would say "which one is going to allow me or my family to get medical attention in the event we need it?"

And the fact remains the same, with Australia as an example, that a nation can have both. Private health care for the people who can afford it and the perks (around half the population, slightly more then 50%) and universal health care for those who can't afford it or don't choose it (the other half, slightly less then 50%)

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

I did not see one strong point after reading that entire thing.

And let's get something straight: Private insurance companies do not give a **** about their customers. I have a brother with autism and they attempt to cut his services (and have on multiple occasions) over the dumbest shit. There are a whole lot of loopholes with insurance companies, certainly when concerning healthcare.

Example: If you call 911 and the ambulance comes to pick you up, you will be charged $5000 if you do not give the insurance company a 24 hour warning. I know for a fact because this happened on more than one occasion when my brother had seizures EVEN THOUGH MY MOM HAS HAD THE SAME INSURANCE COMPANY FOR OVER 10 YEARS. Then they just past on her insurance to another company with seemingly minute changes in fine print that actually add cost to random shit.

Screw private insurance. It's just a huge damn scam.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That doesn't really answer the question, why is it morally correct for the government to take money from people who don't need universal health care and use it to give health care to those that want it?

That's not a good example. Everyone AT SOME POINT will NEED healthcare of some sort.

And then you said those who "want it." Who does not "want" healthcare?

You could easily make the same argument for lots of federal taxes. The government took over $2000 off my check this summer for Social Security and I am 19 years old - I'm never going to see that money again

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet he still raised morality.

To be fair, I think Rob and I started that.

Originally posted by chithappens
That's not a good example. Everyone AT SOME POINT will NEED healthcare of some sort.

And then you said those who "want it." Who does not "want" healthcare?

You could easily make the same argument for lots of federal taxes. The government took over $2000 off my check this summer for Social Security and I am 19 years old - I'm never going to see that money again

It was a question, not an example. Read it again. Go on. Do it.

Originally posted by backdoorman
That doesn't really answer the question, why is it morally correct for the government to take money from people who don't need universal health care and use it to give health care to those that want it?

That has nothing to do with morality. People who send their children to private school also pay towards public education.

See, the interesting part is that governments exist because of a contract between itself and the people. The only problem is that contract apparently states that the citizens have to fulfill their responsabilities to the government, but the government need not do the same in return.

Originally posted by Devil King
That has nothing to do with morality. People who send their children to private school also pay towards public education.

See, the interesting part is that governments exist because of a contract between itself and the people. The only problem is that contract apparently states that the citizens have to fulfill their responsabilities to the government, but the government need not do the same in return. Which, to be fair also has something nto do with morality.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which, to be fair also has something nto do with morality.

I would say responsability, more than morality. But that's just me.

Originally posted by chithappens
That's not a good example. Everyone AT SOME POINT will NEED healthcare of some sort.

And then you said those who "want it." Who does not "want" healthcare?

You could easily make the same argument for lots of federal taxes. The government took over $2000 off my check this summer for Social Security and I am 19 years old - I'm never going to see that money again
There was no example in my post.
I was not speaking of "Wanting health care." I was speaking of "Wanting a universal health care system."
I made no argument.

Originally posted by Devil King
That has nothing to do with morality. People who send their children to private school also pay towards public education.

See, the interesting part is that governments exist because of a contract between itself and the people. The only problem is that contract apparently states that the citizens have to fulfill their responsabilities to the government, but the government need not do the same in return.
The issue does create moral questions. Call it whatever you may there is a point where you have to make moral choices when speaking of most political issues, this one included.

Originally posted by backdoorman
The issue does create moral questions. Call it whatever you may there is a point where you have to make moral choices when speaking of most political issues, this one included.

No. This is where people get so confused. Morality implies some sort of choice. The government need not have the luxury of debate when it comes to doing what they're obliged to do.

The present government may be but perhaps the people against universal health care are also against many other aspects of the current governments.

So? That doesn't have anything to do with it. This isn't a conversation about the government in general. This is a discussion about universal health care.

Originally posted by Devil King
So? That doesn't have anything to do with it. This isn't a conversation about the government in general. This is a discussion about universal health care.
Which the decision of whether or not it is approved can be used to change the way of our governments.

I appreciate the lesson in democracy.

"...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." - Abraham Lincoln

I think Devil King has an angle about it being a "responsibility" more so than a "moral issue".

Originally posted by Devil King
I would say responsability, more than morality. But that's just me.

It sure is.


Just you.


That is.

one post up from yours

that's pretty much my point.

Originally posted by Devil King
one post up from yours

that's pretty much my point.

Well...you and that idiot.

Robtard or Lincoln?

Originally posted by Devil King
Robtard or Lincoln?

The Lincoln quote doesn't support either view. So Robbie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...you and that idiot.


Schwein-Hund, if you were an intelligent man, I'd be offended.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The Lincoln quote doesn't support either view. So Robbie.

WHAT? Explain why it doesn't.

Originally posted by Devil King
WHAT? Explain why it doesn't. Well, for one responsibility is a side effect of morality. If there is no morality there is no responsibility. You do realize that, right?

As for "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." that doesn't really say anything about the issue at hand does it? If you can explain to me how it supports either view I'd be interested.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, for one responsibility is a side effect of morality. If there is no morality there is no responsibility. You do realize that, right?

As for "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." that doesn't really say anything about the issue at hand does it? If you can explain to me how it supports either view I'd be interested.

Not at all. A cop can find nothing morally wrong with smoking pot, but it's his job to arrest someone he catches doing it.

It isn't part of the governmnets job description to make descisions for the people based on what's best for itself, or in this case, those in the government and private sector who gain teh most from keeping healthcare private.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not at all. A cop can find nothing morally wrong with smoking pot, but it's his job to arrest someone he catches doing it.

But he finds this is his responsibility because he thinks that is morally right.

It comes down to morality one way or another.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But he finds this is his responsibility because he thinks that is morally right.

It comes down to morality one way or another.

No way. Maybe if he caught the kid and let him go. But not if he actually arrested him AND had no personal issues with pot.

Originally posted by Devil King
No way. Maybe if he caught the kid and let him go. But not if he actually arrested him AND had no personal issues with pot.

You don't seem to understand really. He might not find pot morally wrong (he would find it morally something I am sure), but if he arrests that kid he does it because he thinks it is morally right to do your job, or because he thinks it is morally right to feed your family at all costs. It is certainly a moral decision.

And whether health care should be paid for by the government or not is without a doubt a moral issue.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love. What don't you see the film SiCKO, then have your opinion about socialised healthcare.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What don't you see the film SiCKO, then have your opinion about socialised healthcare.

Though a decent film, Michael Moore is known for showing only one-side of the issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
Though a decent film, Michael Moore is known for showing only one-side of the issue. Nevertheless, the film clearly states that socialised healthcare is better.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nevertheless, the film clearly states that socialised healthcare is better.

Key word, "states".

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nevertheless, the film clearly states that socialised healthcare is better.

And I state it isn't. Oh...we are equal again.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't seem to understand really. He might not find pot morally wrong (he would find it morally something I am sure), but if he arrests that kid he does it because he thinks it is morally right to do your job, or because he thinks it is morally right to feed your family at all costs. It is certainly a moral decision.

And whether health care should be paid for by the government or not is without a doubt a moral issue.

Okay, I'll conceed your point about the cop and the pot because apparently we see it differently(i'm right though) and you'll argue with me until we're both blue in the face.

And perhaps it's a bad example, because it involves only one person. But the reason a government can't operate on it's own morals is because a government is comprised of far too many people for anything to get done on a true basis of morals. This is why obligation and responsability is the crux of the contract between a government and it's citizens. If morals were as concrete a concept as money, I assure you things would be different.

Originally posted by Devil King
Okay, I'll conceed your point about the cop and the pot because apparently we see it differently(i'm right though) and you'll argue with me until we're both blue in the face.

Nah, I lost interest already. I don't enjoy debating with sensible people usually. Makes me feel all self conscious, also makes me consider their points more. I don't like to doubt myself.

Originally posted by Devil King
And perhaps it's a bad example, because it involves only one person. But the reason a government can't operate on it's own morals is because a government is comprised of far too many people for anything to get done on a true basis of morals. This is why obligation and responsability is the crux of the contract between a government and it's citizens. If morals were as concrete a concept as money, I assure you things would be different.

Trying to set a consistent morality is a tool of society. The fact is that all people have their own morals and they try to make the governments as close to theirs as possible. You are right that they work with responsibility. But what one is responsible to, how far it stretches, etc are all moral issues. Health Care is without a doubt one. You might have an odd definition of morals. But that laws are based on moral judgments is hard to deny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Key word, "states". Fine, it shows socialised healthcare is better.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Fine, it shows socialised healthcare is better.

By what standards?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Fine, it shows socialised healthcare is better.

Look at Nazi propaganda films from the late 30's... it clearly showed a "happy" Germany. Point is, look at both sides and in between.

Originally posted by Bardock42
By what standards? Those in Socialised healthcare countries live longer, get payted better, have better workers, and more. I can't be bothered telling it all to you, so just illegally download the film and watch it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at Nazi propaganda films from the late 30's... it clearly showed a "happy" Germany. Point is, look at both sides and in between. not to sound stupid or naive, but the main points in his film are infallible IMO. Our healthcare is undeniably better.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Those in Socialised healthcare countries live longer, get payted better, have better workers, and more. I can't be bothered telling it all to you, so just illegally download the film and watch it. Why don't you bring some of his points on here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I lost interest already. I don't enjoy debating with sensible people usually. Makes me feel all self conscious, also makes me consider their points more. I don't like to doubt myself.



Trying to set a consistent morality is a tool of society. The fact is that all people have their own morals and they try to make the governments as close to theirs as possible. You are right that they work with responsibility. But what one is responsible to, how far it stretches, etc are all moral issues. Health Care is without a doubt one. You might have an odd definition of morals. But that laws are based on moral judgments is hard to deny.

Trying to make the government's descision making process resemble your own morals is right. I get that.

Take the guy that was arrested for admitting he was attracted to children. They let him go, because he hadn't done anything wrong. There's nothing legally wrong with being attracted to children. There's something morally wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned, but nothing legally wrong.

This is why, despite all the b*tching and moaning about gay marriage, it will happen. There is no stopping it. It's the job of the government and the law that "rules" it, to be totally objective. Morals often lead to acting in haste when you aren't fully informed.

I won't argue that humans operate based on their morals, and that governments(or politicians) use this to fuel elections, political debate and key issues. That's why so much of what is discussed in politics are non-issues, non-government issues.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, I discussed a consensus on what is basic human conditions in this country. It is the responsability of a government of,by and for, to fulfill these obligations. Not to distract the issue by bringing morals or money into it.

(And that's what it's really all about, money.)

Originally posted by lord xyz
not to sound stupid or naive, but the main points in his film are infallible IMO. Our healthcare is undeniably better.

I agree to a degree, but Moore, like in the rest of his films tries hard to sway the viewer to his own personal views and bias. I don't like that, I prefer to see both sides and judge for myself.

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree to a degree, but Moore, like in the rest of his films tries hard to sway the viewer to his own personal views and bias. I don't like that, I prefer to see both sides and judge for myself.

Or you could you could just pull a South Park and say everyone on either extreme is stupid.

It's easier to give you this link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

Here's the trailer if you want to see it: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/trailer/

Originally posted by Devil King
Trying to make the government's descision making process resemble your own morals is right. I get that.

Take the guy that was arrested for admitting he was attracted to children. They let him go, because he hadn't done anything wrong. There's nothing legally wrong with being attracted to children. There's something morally wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned, but nothing legally wrong.

Yeah, as far as you are concerned. Not me. It is a moral decision. We find it morally wrong to punish people for something they did not do but just think. That's the government's moral decision

Originally posted by Devil King
This is why, despite all the b*tching and moaning about gay marriage, it will happen. There is no stopping it. It's the job of the government and the law that "rules" it, to be totally objective. Morals often lead to acting in haste when you aren't fully informed.

Err, both sides are moral standards. Some want gay marriage and think it is morally right to allow it some don't

Originally posted by Devil King
I won't argue that humans operate based on their morals, and that governments(or politicians) use this to fuel elections, political debate and key issues. That's why so much of what is discussed in politics are non-issues, non-government issues.

I don't understand what you see as morals and what not.

Originally posted by Devil King
If you go back to the beginning of this thread, I discussed a consensus on what is basic human conditions in this country. It is teh responsability of a government of,by and for, to fulfill these obligations. Not to distract the issue by bringing morals or money into it.

Responsibility is inevitably linked with morality. Morality defines every aspect of a responsibility. You give it a different name. But it is morals, you think the government is morally responsible to provide that for it's people others don't...it's just about where you draw the line of responsibility.

Originally posted by Devil King
(And that's what it's really all about, money.)

Yeah, it is one of the major factors. Though again deeply linked to morality.

Originally posted by Robtard
I agree to a degree, but Moore, like in the rest of his films tries hard to sway the viewer to his own personal views and bias. I don't like that, I prefer to see both sides and judge for myself. Hey, it's the same situation with South Park and Penn and Teller. They're biased as ****, but so what when they're right?

A problem I see is that Health Care is linked to much more than just the survival rates, etc. It's very hard to compare how tax increases influence everything. I think all the effects are just very hard to calculate.

Nah, higher taxes + socialised healthcare = better healthcare.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nah, higher taxes + socialised healthcare = better healthcare.

In your opinion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In your opinion. And many others, I'm guessing yours aswell.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And many others, I'm guessing yours aswell.

I am relatively uncertain. Generally I would go for a no, though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am relatively uncertain. Generally I would go for a no, though. Huh, I'd expect you to be smart enough to support socialisedhealthcare, your government does afterall.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Huh, I'd expect you to be smart enough to support socialisedhealthcare, your government does afterall.

I-i can think for myself.

It all depends on how it is financed, what is covered, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I-i can think for myself.

It all depends on how it is financed, what is covered, etc. Yes you can.

I'm guessing the US is rich enough for socialised healthcare.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes you can.

I'm guessing the US is rich enough for socialised healthcare.

Probably. The question is how will it be done practically. What procedures are covered. How is it financed? Who pays the more taxes, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, as far as you are concerned. Not me. It is a moral decision. We find it morally wrong to punish people for something they did not do but just think. That's the government's moral decision

As far as I'm concerned, what? Morals are an issue of emotional reaction. This is why a judge will recuse himself during a trial, because he knows he isn't approaching the case from an objective place. That is the government...at least in theory.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Err, both sides are moral standards. Some want gay marriage and think it is morally right to allow it some don't

no no, I'm not saying it isn't a moral perspective that allows us to have an opinion on it. I'm saying that the removal of morality from the debate is going to be the enevitable outcome. This is why one side of the debate is going to end up wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand what you see as morals and what not.

I don't understand your question(or statement), so we're both confused I guess.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Responsibility is inevitably linked with morality. Morality defines every aspect of a responsibility. You give it a different name. But it is morals, you think the government is morally responsible to provide that for it's people others don't...it's just about where you draw the line of responsibility.

Oh no, I don't think the government is morally responsable for anything. I don't think a government is capable of being moral or immoral. We aren't talking about social responsability. We're talking about the responsability of a government, based solely on it's own existence.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, it is one of the major factors. Though again deeply linked to morality.

You aren't talking about morality, you're talking about a total lack of it.

legal or not legal does not = moral

Originally posted by Devil King
As far as I'm concerned, what? Morals are an issue of emotional reaction. This is why a judge will recuse himself during a trial, because he knows he isn't approaching the case from an objective place. That is the government...at least in theory.

Morals do not mean that it has to be an emotional reaction at all. It can be absolutely rational, you got an odd view of morals.


Originally posted by Devil King

no no, I'm not saying it isn't a moral perspective that allows us to have an opinion on it. I'm saying that the removal of morality from the debate is going to be the enevitable outcome. This is why one side of the debate is going to end up wrong.

Morality can not be removed from the issue. What would you even talk about if it was?
Originally posted by Devil King

I don't understand your question(or statement), so we're both confused I guess.

What are morals to you? How would you define them?
Originally posted by Devil King

Oh no, I don't think the government is morally responsable for anything. I don't think a government is capable of being moral or immoral. We aren't talking about social responsability. We're talking about the responsability of a government, based solely on it's own existence.

Elaborate please.

Originally posted by Devil King

You aren't talking about morality, you're talking about a total lack of it.

Not at all. I am talking about morals. That's what everything is about here.
Originally posted by Devil King

legal or not legal does not = moral

Actually laws are a set of morals, or at least caused by a set of them. Legal means moral in one set of morals.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Morals do not mean that it has to be an emotional reaction at all. It can be absolutely rational, you got an odd view of morals.

Morals are not the same as integrity. Integrity is a personal standard, morals are not. Your morals standards are what you hold others to.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Morality can not be removed from the issue. What would you even talk about if it was?

exactly! What would there be to talk about? I didn't say it wasn't a moral issue for some people, I'm saying morality will, in the end, have nothing to do with it.



Originally posted by Bardock42
What are morals to you? How would you define them?

See above.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Elaborate please.

In order for a government to exist, it has to be the will of teh people that it exist. But after that, it can't represent everyone based on a limited idea, like moral subjectivity. A government is not an individual, so it can't be moral or immoral. A government can't have an opinion, unless it's a unanimous opinion amongst it's citizens.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Not at all. I am talking about morals. That's what everything is about here.

that was a joke.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually laws are a set of morals, or at least caused by a set of them. Legal means moral in one set of morals.

Perhaps 2000 years ago when Moses was sitting on that mountain chisseling commandments.

Laws can't be morals, otherwise they wouldn't be laws...they'd be morals.

Originally posted by Devil King
Morals are not the same as integrity. Integrity is a personal standard, morals are not. Your morals standards are what you hold others to.


Well, yeah, they are not the same, your point? Also, your morals might be not to judge others, you wouldn't hold them by them then, would you?


Originally posted by Devil King
exactly! What would there be to talk about? I didn't say it wasn't a moral issue for some people, I'm saying morality will, in the end, have nothing to do with it.


But it will. I am sure you can't even imagine a scenario in where it is solved without morals being involved.



Originally posted by Devil King
See above.

Okay

Originally posted by Devil King
In order for a government to exist, it has to be the will of teh people that it exist. But after that, it can't represent everyone based on a limited idea, like moral subjectivity. A government is not an individual, so it can't be moral or immoral. A government can't have an opinion, unless it's a unanimous opinion amongst it's citizens.

It's mostly actions that can be moral or immoral. A government acts, so it can be moral by all people's subjective standards as well as creating one itself after which it acts. Governments have a moral code.


Originally posted by Devil King
that was a joke.

Ha Ha


Originally posted by Devil King
Perhaps 2000 years ago when Moses was sitting on that mountain chisseling commandments.

Laws can't be morals, otherwise they wouldn't be laws...they'd be morals.

What nonsense. Laws are always morals.

If you say "It is not allowed to kill another person, a person that does that will be punished" you are saying "It is wrong to kill" it is a moral.

Is'nt this supposed to be about Healthcare?