Universal Healthcare, why it should not be brought upon Americans

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.

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

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

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

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 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?

Statement: An accurate statement.

Thank you.

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

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.

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

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

1st. Cancer survival has improved across Europe, with eastern European nations beginning to close the gap with western neighbours, according to a study covering the decade up to 2002, released Tuesday.

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.

The 23-country study, the largest of its kind, said that the survival rate for the most common cancers -- colorectal, lung, breast and prostate -- and for ovarian cancer was highest in Nordic countries, with the exception of Denmark, and in central Europe.

It was somewhat lower in southern Europe, including Spain and Italy, lower still in Britain and Ireland, and lowest in eastern Europe.

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 called for the development of a "pan-European cancer plan" to promote modern diagnostic and treatment facilities.

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."

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

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

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.

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?"

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.

From 1991 to 2002, survival rates in eastern Europe improved from 30.3 to 44.7 percent for colorectal cancer, from 60.0 to 73.9 percent for breast cancer, and from 39.5 to 68.0 percent for prostate cancer.

For patients diagnosed in 2000-2002, survival for patients across Europe with tumours was significantly lower than in the United States: 47.3 percent for men and 55.8 for women, compared to 66.3 and 62.9 percent respectively, the study noted.

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:

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Image:

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.

Statement: Such data are subjective.

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

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

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

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.

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 😆

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.

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.

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.