Universal Healthcare, why it should not be brought upon Americans

Originally posted by Devil King
It's a non-answer to a non-issue.

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.

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

Corollary: Taxes are used to fund those organizations.

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

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

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

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

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.

Statement: FeceMan does not resort to scare tactics.

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.".

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

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.

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.?

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.

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, and 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.".

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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

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.

Statement: This is another non-answer.

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

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.

Statement: Universal health care is funded with tax dollars.

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

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

Conclusion: Taxes will have to be raised to fund universal health care.

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.

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 health care.

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.

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.

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

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 health care in the United States, but, rather, how the legal system is intertwined with health care.

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: Imperial_Samurai chose to engage FeceMan in the question nonetheless.

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.

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

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.

Definition:

in·fer
–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

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.

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".

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.