Healthcare Bill Passed

[Hakaku]

I'm not comparing the health care bill to canada. I'm just going on what people have told me.

People complain often that since everyone has free health care in canada, there are longer lines. I have even heard that people come down the to states for surgery that they would otherwise have to wait for years to get in canada.

Other than that, I don't know anything else about canada's health care system....

 

Also: I don't watch Fox News... I prefer CNN. I only watch the Fox local news because I like their format better.

Yes, yes, I've heard it all. So I've taken the liberty to bold the part that's so so wrong about your ideology. Now, that having been said, can you actually back up any of those claims with factual statistics that compare the Canadian system to the American one? And can you actually blame wait times on government health care? And can you actually give me statistics on the number of Canadians who actually travel to the United States specifically for quicker treatment.

 

While I've never gotten sick in Canada, why is Canada constantly lampooned as "the socialized medical system we DON'T want"? I'm not being facetious. I'm truly asking. The radio pundits constantly say "Candians always come to the US for treatment". While I have never witnessed throngs of Canadians coming for bariatric sxurgery

 

It's a fear tactic employed namely by Americans as a way to prevent the adoption of a more egalitarian health care system. By overgeneralizing that a great portion of Canadians go to the United States to get treatment, they can persuade people into believing that the adoption of a more socialized health care system will lead to the decline in medical innovations that can only be achieved in the United States' current privatized health care system.

 

The problem is, the majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the Canadian health system, and that's what makes this argument quite sad. The most evident fallacy is that there aren't actually very many Canadians crossing the border merely to get 'better' treatment. The Canadians who do go to the United States do so because certain advancements or practices are not yet available in Canada. The same applies to Americans who come to Canada for medical treatment. Essentially, each and every country tends to focus on different areas of research, which enable them to specialize in certain domains better than other countries.

 

The second argument is that a socialized health care system leads to longer waiting periods, so these supposed Canadians cross the border for faster treatment. The obvious flaw with this is that Canada does have a private health care sector. If someone with the money really wants to get something done as soon as possible, they can. Taxes make no difference, since a Canadian will still be paying taxes for the main health care system, whether he goes through the local private sector or abroad. Thus, the private sector exists as a complementary system. The other flaw is that wait times are merely a parallel to how hospitals are organized. Some hospitals in the United States have much higher waiting periods than most in Canada, while many in Canada can be slow due to being understaffed (in regards to the population) and disorganized.

 

In reality though, most Canadians are quite proud of their health care system. Abuse occurs when people come in and bring their children all the time to the hospital for every little symptom, or when paranoid people return every so often to check up on whether a new treatment is miraculously available. Some Canadians would like to see these nuisances scared off by requiring a minimum fee (even if as low as 5$), so that people with actual issues can obtain faster service.

[SeVeR]

The obvious flaw with this is that Canada does have a private health care sector. If someone with the money really wants to get something done as soon as possible, they can. Taxes make no difference, since a Canadian will still be paying taxes for the main health care system, whether he goes through the local private sector or abroad. Thus, the private sector exists as a complementary system.

^Exactly as it should be.

 

Us British are proud of our socialised health system too, and nearly everyone agrees that we should maintain it at all costs. To become like America would horrify us all. Even the right-wing Conservative party have their slogan talking about keeping the NHS, just so people don't get the wrong idea about them.

[BDwinsAlt]

 

Us British are proud of our socialised health system too, and nearly everyone agrees that we should maintain it at all costs.

 

Must not cover dental...

[Dr Brain]

The fact that Canada has a private health care system that is competing with a 0-cost public health care system shows how bad the public one must really be. If the public one were any good, the private one wouldn't exist.

[Hakaku]

The fact that Canada has a private health care system that is competing with a 0-cost public health care system shows how bad the public one must really be. If the public one were any good, the private one wouldn't exist.

That's like saying why bother have a pool in your backyard when you can just go to the public one. Afterall, it's way cheaper and you don't have to maintain it. Why bother with the one you may not be actually using at all? Why bother with the cost? Why waste the space? Why have something that doesn't benefit everyone? What's the point? - You can find reasons to anything, and arguments pro and con everything; it all ends up being subjective.

 

Not every service is fully covered under public health care, such as dentistry, optometry and prescription drugs to name a few; so many employers offer additional private health insurance to cover this specific range of services. These form essentially the core of the entire private sector. There's no actual competition between the private and public health sector; the private sector still has to abide by strict regulations and, ultimately supports the public one. On the other hand, treatment and medical care through the private sector can still end up covered under the public health system. The two are integrated and interrelated, not clear-cut separate. I don't see why you're so afraid of a yin-yang structure.

[Dr Brain]

Your analogy makes no sense, since I didn't think that there were backyard hospitals in Canada. I could be wrong, of course.

 

Your reply seems contradictory. If they're complimentary (not offering similar services), then it shouldn't have been used as a counter-example for Canadians coming to the US for care. On the other hand, if they're offering similar services then they're competing. So which is it? Does Canada offer the same services in the private sector as the public sector?

 

My point wasn't that Canada sucks (as I have no first-hand or second-hand knowledge about Canadian health-care). My point was that the counter-argument you posted sucks.

 

I'm not afraid of a yin-yang structure (though they tend to be unstable systems, if you've done any control theory). I'm afraid of governments, as they do everything in the least efficient manner, steal my money and generally give the individual no choice.

[Hakaku]

Your analogy makes no sense, since I didn't think that there were backyard hospitals in Canada. I could be wrong, of course.

The purpose of the analogy was to explain that there can be multitudes of reasons why someone would choose to go through the private sector, in the same way there can be multitudes of reasons why someone would want their own pool rather than go to a public one. Most of it boils down to convenience. - I, for one, live in a rural community, so for me it's more convenient to have a pool in my backyard than travel all the way to the nearest city. You could regard it as time wasted. Yet, I don't doubt that the public pool is beneficial for the masses, including myself and those around me, so I have no reason to object to its existence. The fact that the public pool is cheaper or may offer better service or quality has nothing to do with my choice. - In the same way, the fact that you don't pay for public health care has little impact on those who have their minds and pockets set on going through private one. And, most of those who do go through the private sector still acknowledge and support the public one.

 

 

Your reply seems contradictory. If they're complimentary (not offering similar services), then it shouldn't have been used as a counter-example for Canadians coming to the US for care. On the other hand, if they're offering similar services then they're competing. So which is it? Does Canada offer the same services in the private sector as the public sector?

It's not contradictory. I stated that what the public health care sector doesn't provide is what merely constitutes the core of the private sector. The private sector can still provide everything that the public sector does, though it's much smaller, more costly, and arguably less widely used. The latter factors are what makes it an ideal choice for people who have the money, since it has the effect of making their services faster. And speed is one of the main arguments against adopting such a "Canadian system".

 

If you absolutely want to see it as a competition, then it ultimately boils down to the difference between the two types of systems. Our public health care system prioritizes people with more life-threatening issues first, whereas the private one often prioritizes money first.

 

As for the Canadians going to the US for health care, I'd still love to see actual statistics and reasoning. According to the Canadian National Population Health Survey, 0.5% of Canadians sought medical care in your country, with less than a quarter having expressly travelled there to get that care. The only way to make a bold statement that the Canadian structure doesn't work and the American one does, would be to do a comparative survey of the number of Americans who get medical care in Canada, then add on Mexico. And then finally refine both studies to determine whether those who travelled expressly for medical care were covered under their home systems.

[Bak]

what we gain, the ability to get coverage in spite of preexisting conditions and protection from getting service terminated because it's costly, outweighs what we lose, the right to not get health insurance.

 

Do you feel that your rights are infinitely valuable? Would you give up some rights you value to achieve a goal which you value even more?

 

http://kiplinger.com/infographics/health_care_spending/images/maplarge.gif

[Dr Brain]

what we gain, the ability to get coverage in spite of preexisting conditions and protection from getting service terminated because it's costly, outweighs what we lose, the right to not get health insurance.

 

I disagree.

 

Do you feel that your rights are infinitely valuable? Would you give up some rights you value to achieve a goal which you value even more?

 

Do I feel that *my* rights are infinitely valuable? No. Do I feel that rights in general are infinitely valuable? Yes. Would I give up some of *my* rights? Yes. Would I take the rights from other people to achieve a goal of mine? No, that's theft.

 

You're stealing from me, and I'm pissed.

[divine.216]

You argue in vague absolutes. Your "rights" (which one's pray tell?) aren't terribly helpful if we (the people) decide not to enforce them for you. If entitlement programs get your panties in a bunch, and you can't get behind helping the poor and the unfortunate, then consider welfare measures to be the cost of preventing the poor from taking all of your stuff. It's the low road to civic virtue.

[Dr Brain]

All of my rights. The US is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That means the rights of minorities (and not just the racist PC minorities that you hear flaming liberals talk about, ALL minorities) are protected from the will of the majority.

 

Who says I can't get behind helping the poor? Where is it written that I hate poor people? I used to be poor, after all. There's nothing wrong with charity programs. Charities don't steal money from people like welfare programs do. Until you realize the difference, you'll never be able to help the poor.

[Simulacrum]

Yeah, guys; welfare doesn't help anybody until we all agree with Dr. Brain that taxes are theft.

[Dr Brain]

I didn't say you have to agree. I said you have to realize the difference.

[divine.216]

I'm not inclined to argue constitutional theory, but suffice it to say you overstate our procedural protections against impulsive majorities. It is not absolute. And whatever policy disagreements we have over health care reform -- desirable or not -- the implementation falls comfortably within the congressional powers to tax, spend, and regulate commerce.

 

Are you peeved about the individual mandate, insurance company restrictions, or something else?

 

I'm unsure what you're arguing: (1) moral ("it's wrong!"), (2) legal ("law says you can't!"), or (3) sociological ("your tactics, even if moral and legal, won't work!"). Put differently, if we fail to "realize" your theft-distinction between government welfare and private charity, then does that make our efforts to legislate social welfare programs (1) evil, (2) lawless, or (3) just ineffective?

[Simulacrum]

I didn't say you have to agree. I said you have to realize the difference.

"The difference" here being that "Charities don't steal money from people like welfare programs do." So, yes; coming to such a realization would require one to agree with you.

[SeVeR]

When has charity ever properly helped the poor?

 

All the poor people cut off from welfare would have to get a job or perish. The jobs they get would be shittier because they are more desperate to get one. No benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour. Those forced to perish would rob you in the street, and kill you to get at your wallet. We'd be back in the dark ages so fast it will be like turning off the light switch.

 

You think charity would prevent this?

[Dr Brain]

And whatever policy disagreements we have over health care reform -- desirable or not -- the implementation falls comfortably within the congressional powers to tax, spend, and regulate commerce.

 

I disagree. A law requiring the purchase of an item is none of those three.

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

The constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce *between* states.

 

Are you peeved about the individual mandate, insurance company restrictions, or something else?

 

The whole damn thing. Not to mention the cost.

 

I'm unsure what you're arguing: (1) moral ("it's wrong!"), (2) legal ("law says you can't!"), or (3) sociological ("your tactics, even if moral and legal, won't work!"). Put differently, if we fail to "realize" your theft-distinction between government welfare and private charity, then does that make our efforts to legislate social welfare programs (1) evil, (2) lawless, or (3) just ineffective?

 

I'm arguing 1 & 2, Clearly 3 is untrue. It makes welfare just 1. It happens to be 3 because of inefficiencies and politician's cluelessness, staples of government programs.

 

 

I didn't say you have to agree. I said you have to realize the difference.

"The difference" here being that "Charities don't steal money from people like welfare programs do." So, yes; coming to such a realization would require one to agree with you.

 

Uh, you could realize it's theft and rationalize it for the greater good like all totalitarian societies do.

 

When has charity ever properly helped the poor?

 

When has welfare? Clearly your definition of help depends on how much money they pay, and not how much better the person's situation becomes. To paraphrase Regan, success shouldn't be measured by how many people are on welfare, but by how many people no longer need it.

 

All the poor people cut off from welfare would have to get a job or perish.

 

Why? It's true that getting any job removes them from welfare, but that's just another reason it's evil. If you think outside the government indoctrination box you've got, there are always local charities one can take advantage of.

 

The jobs they get would be shittier because they are more desperate to get one. No benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour.

 

The *ahem* adjective shittier implies that they have a job already to compare it to. And if you're comparing it to welfare, then you're basically admitting that they'll never be able to get off of it (which, sadly, is almost always the case).

 

Those forced to perish would rob you in the street, and kill you to get at your wallet.

 

History says otherwise. There was law and order before the 1950s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually less crime (I'm not saying there is causation, only correlation).

 

We'd be back in the dark ages so fast it will be like turning off the light switch.

 

When china stops financing our debt because we're spending into oblivion, it's going to be like that anyway, and not just for the poor.

 

You think charity would prevent this?

 

History shows that it can.

[divine.216]

All the poor people cut off from welfare . . . . We'd be back in the dark ages so fast it will be like turning off the light switch.

SeVeR, I have to disagree. Removing all social safety nets would indeed cause a big uptick in crime, but we still have police and other ways to keep the peace. My reference to "taking all your stuff" was to calm Dr Brain's discontent by offhandedly invoking the social contract (submit to law and, in exchange, we'll enforce it for all).

 

When has charity ever properly helped the poor?

Of course private charities help people, all the time. It's just not clear that a system of private charity completely answers society's need (it didn't back in the day).

 

And I agree with Dr Brain that government welfare displaces a lot of private charity. But this is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, without private charity you eliminate most of the heroic virtue of giving, as Dr Brain laments, by making it coercive. On the other hand, government "charity" is both hampered and protected by all the limits of government activities (equal protection, due process, etc.). A church-based "welfare" program could avoid a lot of bureaucratic knots and paperwork; but like any private charity, the church could also refuse to help people who are irish, gay, black, male, or ugly.

[divine.216]

And whatever policy disagreements we have over health care reform -- desirable or not -- the implementation falls comfortably within the congressional powers to tax, spend, and regulate commerce.

 

I disagree. A law requiring the purchase of an item is none of those three.

 

This doesn't require you to purchase anything.

 

You don't have to purchase health insurance, but you'll pay more taxes if you don't.

You don't have to have children, but you'll pay more taxes if you don't.

You don't have to buy a house, but you'll pay more taxes if you don't.

. . . etc.

[divine.216]

Are you peeved about the individual mandate, insurance company restrictions, or something else?

 

The whole damn thing. Not to mention the cost.

I am terrified by the prospect of our jaw-dropping national debt. But I'm glad the health care bill passed, it is a social priority for me, and it needed to happen. So while we need to cut spending, I would begin cutting elsewhere.

[Dr Brain]

I don't believe church charities can legally discriminate against religion, sex, sexual orientation, or appearance.

 

Also a penalty is not the same thing as a tax.

[SeVeR]

When has charity ever properly helped the poor?

 

When has welfare? Clearly your definition of help depends on how much money they pay, and not how much better the person's situation becomes. To paraphrase Regan, success shouldn't be measured by how many people are on welfare, but by how many people no longer need it.

Welfare currently helps the poor by preventing them from dying of starvation or the elements when they don't have jobs. Money helps improve a persons situation, are you seriously saying otherwise? I don't disagree with the quote. Why would charity even come close to replacing this? Donations to charity fluctuate during the year, and they can never meet the amount of money provided by welfare. More people would die.

 

The jobs they get would be shittier because they are more desperate to get one. No benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour.

 

The *ahem* adjective shittier implies that they have a job already to compare it to. And if you're comparing it to welfare, then you're basically admitting that they'll never be able to get off of it (which, sadly, is almost always the case).

So are you saying we should be creating jobs with "no benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour" for people instead of giving them welfare?

 

Those forced to perish would rob you in the street, and kill you to get at your wallet.

 

History says otherwise. There was law and order before the 1950s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually less crime (I'm not saying there is causation, only correlation).

Crime is historically higher in recessions. The overall trend of crime to increase over the last century has zero to do with welfare laws. For one there are more types of crime now to be prosecuted with. Secondly, there would have to be an equally proficient police force and equal social influences, for instance the 1950s were a post-war period reflecting a public unity against acts of criminality and a huge rise in pacifism. Crime increases or decreases based on sudden changes to the status quo, it's the spoilt-child situation: if you were forced to live in Africa you would find it abhorrent, while a member of the royal family would find your life horrid, it's the sudden changes like a recession. To cut everyone off from welfare would cause a huge rise in crime.

 

You think charity would prevent this?

 

History shows that it can.

Really??? Please enlighten me.

 

SeVeR, I have to disagree. Removing all social safety nets would indeed cause a big uptick in crime, but we still have police and other ways to keep the peace.

I agree. It was a figure of speech. People often remark about "going back to the dark ages".

 

Of course private charities help people, all the time. It's just not clear that a system of private charity completely answers society's need (it didn't back in the day).

That's why I said "When have charities ever PROPERLY helped the poor", so my point is exactly the same as yours, that charities probably won't be able to meet society's needs.

 

On the one hand, without private charity you eliminate most of the heroic virtue of giving, as Dr Brain laments, by making it coercive.

I don't see charity as heroic in any way. It's much more heroic to give without the acknowledgment for it.

 

A church-based "welfare" program could avoid a lot of bureaucratic knots and paperwork; but like any private charity, the church could also refuse to help people who are irish, gay, black, male, or ugly.

A church-based system would come with a particular conversion-based disadvantage. We already have enough conversion through charity going on, we don't want the whole lower class of society to become Christian any more than it already is.

[Dr Brain]

The point of welfare and charity is not to give them money. The point is to give them money so they'll better their situation. Welfare does not accomplish this. I'm not saying it couldn't. I'm saying it doesn't.

 

I'm sure charities could never replace welfare for 77% administrative overhead. I'm sure they could never replace welfare for creating a welfare class of people. I'm sure there's tons of things that charities couldn't do, but none of those things actually help people.

 

I used the 1950s as a starting point for the current welfare systems. The 1930s and 1940s may have been more accurate. My point still remains though. There was civilization before the US socialism movement.

 

Haha, I've never heard taxes referred to as anonymous donations before. Your arguments always make me smile.

[Bak]

brain, do you believe giving recently out-of-work people unemployment benefits is theft?

 

I think some social safety net is desirable, and this health care bill is simply an extension of such protection.

[SeVeR]

The point of welfare and charity is not to give them money. The point is to give them money so they'll better their situation. Welfare does not accomplish this. I'm not saying it couldn't. I'm saying it doesn't.

How doesn't it? You give people money, they use it to buy food and fuel, they survive. A charity would be no different, except it would be less money and at irregular intervals. At times of few donations it would systematically kill off a percentage of the poor.

 

I'm sure charities could never replace welfare for 77% administrative overhead. I'm sure they could never replace welfare for creating a welfare class of people. I'm sure there's tons of things that charities couldn't do, but none of those things actually help people.

Just the idea of expecting charity to replace welfare is bloody ridiculous. You didn't give any examples of how "History shows that it can" replace welfare.

 

I used the 1950s as a starting point for the current welfare systems. The 1930s and 1940s may have been more accurate. My point still remains though. There was civilization before the US socialism movement.

Yea, and it sucked. Thousands were dying every winter.

 

Haha, I've never heard taxes referred to as anonymous donations before. Your arguments always make me smile.

When did I say this? I remember deleting it from my "preview post" because it sounded silly, but how could you see that? I hadn't even posted it.