Government vs. Capitalist Health Care Systems

[apple0154]

Other countries don't lead the world in Capitalism. Other countries don't have a US Constitution. Longevity indigenous to various people, often has little to do with available health care, you have never made this point. After Alaska became a state, and we started examining the Inuit people (Eskimos), we discovered they had amazing longevity. This is thought to be a result of relative low-fat diets of mostly fish, and living in an environment inhospitable to bacteria, along with other lifestyle habits exclusive to their people. It's not because Alaska was dotted with free health care facilities, quite the contrary. If health care availability resulted in assured longevity, we would expect to see longevity in and around major metro areas to be much higher than it's rural counterparts, but that isn't the case. People in the city tend to have shorter longevity, in spite of an abundance of health care available. More health care available, simply doesn't mean you will live longer.

Now, in a place where Capitalism doesn't flourish, and it is difficult to operate as a true Capitalist, they have found the best solution to health care, is to have the government provide it. This is acceptable for them, because they don't know how to make Capitalism work like we do. It works out okay because they don't have large populations, nor do they have millions of illegal aliens crossing their borders. Most importantly, they don't have a US Constitution like ours, so they don't have to worry with ensuring Constitutional rights. If "Government Medical," as you like to call it, decides that your surgery is not important because you are not as productive as a citizen, they can make the decision that you don't deserve it. If there is one kidney left in the kidney bank, it goes to whoever the state feels is most deserving, and you don't really have any recourse. Other countries don't have a Supreme Court to uphold their right to equal protection under the law, we do. So the things that might happen to work in other countries, has absolutely nothing to do with us, and how things work here.

In just two paragraphs, I have completely destroyed every argument you have presented for "Government Medical."

I predict you will ignore this, and continue to repeat these same points over and over again.

Let’s take it from the top.

Other countries don't lead the world in Capitalism. Other countries don't have a US Constitution.

I’m not sure what bearing capitalism and a constitution have on longevity. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Longevity indigenous to various people, often has little to do with available health care, you have never made this point.

I never made that point because the vast majority of US citizens are either directly from or are descendants of those from countries that have government health care. United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Israel, etc. The US is a nation of immigrants.

If health care availability resulted in assured longevity, we would expect to see longevity in and around major metro areas to be much higher than it's rural counterparts, but that isn't the case. People in the city tend to have shorter longevity, in spite of an abundance of health care available. More health care available, simply doesn't mean you will live longer.

The key word is “availability”. Health care is not available to those who don’t have insurance or have a high co-pay. Furthermore, in all likelihood those supplying health care in rural areas treat people and charge what the community (citizens) can afford. Being a member of a small, rural community almost compels one to do so.

Now, in a place where Capitalism doesn't flourish, and it is difficult to operate as a true Capitalist, they have found the best solution to health care, is to have the government provide it. This is acceptable for them, because they don't know how to make Capitalism work like we do.

Work like we do? Tell that to the unemployed who have no medical insurance. Remember the Harvard study; 45,000 people dying every year due to a lack of insurance. Everyone, Repubs and Dems alike, acknowledge there is a problem so things are not working.

It works out okay because they don't have large populations…

We’ve been over this a million times. Big and small land masses. Large and small populations. Rich and poor countries. No, there is not one country identical to the US in size and population with the same make-up of citizens or the same constitution or…..No two countries are the same but every one that implemented government health care has kept it. No exception.

…..nor do they have millions of illegal aliens crossing their borders.

A picture ID is all that’s required. Like a driver’s licence.

If "Government Medical," as you like to call it, decides that your surgery is not important because you are not as productive as a citizen, they can make the decision that you don't deserve it.

More craziness. The government does not decide what medical procedures will be done on a case by case basis. Again, you’re thinking private insurance. If a procedure is covered by government insurance it’s covered for everyone and that’s one of the reasons it’s such a good idea. Different ethnic groups tend to be prone to different illnesses. That results in government medical having to cover a greater majority of illnesses for everyone. Also, sometimes illnesses are more prevalent in certain areas. Again, government insurance has to cover those illnesses for everyone.

If there is one kidney left in the kidney bank, it goes to whoever the state feels is most deserving, and you don't really have any recourse.

It appears you know nothing about organ donation, as well.

Other countries don't have a Supreme Court to uphold their right to equal protection under the law, we do.

Nothing guarantees equal protection better than government health care. Everyone is entitled to exactly the same care.

In just two paragraphs, I have completely destroyed every argument you have presented for "Government Medical.

The only thing you have destroyed is your credibility to discuss “Government Medical”. Your complete and utter ignorance concerning the matter is shameful. I’ve said over and over, do some research. Virtually everything you wrote is incorrect.

 

[apple0154]

Longer life does not equate to greater freedom. It is a poor figure especially when it is figured differently (it ignores early premature births that in other nations are simply untreated while the US, admirably IMO, tries to save them, those deaths are figured into the US average to its detriment, well that and the obesity issue.)

Your goal is maximum care, mine is maximum freedom. I believe in a balance and do not believe that we should ignore the cost of freedom when figuring the cost of conception to grave care.

It seems it's really about the money as no one is compelled to seek medical care. Suppose medical care could be offered by cutting taxes that go towards something else like the military or public parks or highways or some other thing taxes currently go towards. Would that be acceptable or are you against the idea of everyone being entitled to medical care regardless of their financial situation?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let’s take it from the top.

"Other countries don't lead the world in Capitalism. Other countries don't have a US Constitution."
I’m not sure what bearing capitalism and a constitution have on longevity. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I did elaborate, and this illustrates your problem. Before you even read the remainder of the post, you were already responding to what was said. You are incapable of hearing anyone out on this, your mind is made up... and believe me, we get that. But that does not mean you get to ignore points that are made, and that is what you continue to do as you repeat the same defeated points over and over. It has gotten a bit ridiculous. Until you can appropriately address the entirety of my post, we need not discuss this further.

Again, we ARE a nation of immigrants, most of whom came here because of our freedom and capitalism, and to escape statism and government control. The wealthy and elite in the countries you cite as your shining examples, routinely visit American hospitals and seek the treatment of American doctors, as opposed to their own nationalized system. If their system was so much better, why would they bother traveling here for medical care? In fact, why don't we see our rich and elite traveling to these great shining examples of glorious health care around the world that you speak of? Could it be because you're full of shit? I do believe so!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It seems it's really about the money ...

Yes, it IS about the money! You seem to think that changing the responsibility of who pays, somehow effects the cost. You seem to believe covering millions of extra people is somehow going to cost less money. You think creating considerably more demand for health care, will ultimately mean the cost goes down. You have no explanation for this, other than to point to "other countries" ...even though some of them are currently burning to the ground in chaos because they are broke. Apparently, you think money that comes from the government is just free for the taking, doesn't matter in the scheme of things, and doesn't really count. It just magically appears when needed, to fund and support whatever you dream up. You live in this fantasy world, far away from the rest of us, and there is no way to convince you that you are insane.

There is no such animal as "Free Health Care." And when we are dealing with something as profoundly and personally as important as health care, the expense is no object. We want the best, not mediocre. We aren't really interested in bargain basement health care, it's more important to us than cost. But what you propose doesn't even address cost, it deals with control of administration and insurance coverage, and shifts the burden away from capitalism to government control, but it does nothing to ensure lower cost. If anything, one could argue, such a system would greatly increase costs, because there will be a great increase in demand.... (see law of supply and demand)

Now the results of your plan: We have higher costs, less accessibility, and fiscally unsustainable nationalized health care. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

 

[blackascoal]

I do not believe so. Nothing curbs freedom like the government holding responsibility towards your care. Each decision you make then comes under their umbrella. I can see future arguments where they say that being fat costs more therefore you cannot eat "such and such" (in some places they already have some laws going in that direction)...

When government is powerful enough to provide your every need, it is powerful enough to take your freedoms (a word I often find interchangeable with responsibilities).

I cannot see a way that such incredible government power over one of the most important aspects of our lives does not end poorly for individual freedom.

With all due respect as usual my wise brother, I fail to see where "freedom" has anything whatsoever to do with saving lives and children. I fail to see where "freedom" is inhibited by a more educated society.

Free education and healthcare does not provide for one's every need, but they most certainly provide for a healthier and more educated society .. which is then able to make more and better choices in life.

What choices do sick and illiterate people have other than to be sick, and/or, illiterate?

Access to education and healthcare are a good thing .. and they always will be.


I'm a socialist, I'm talking about people, not person.

 

[blackascoal]

It seems it's really about the money as no one is compelled to seek medical care. Suppose medical care could be offered by cutting taxes that go towards something else like the military or public parks or highways or some other thing taxes currently go towards. Would that be acceptable or are you against the idea of everyone being entitled to medical care regardless of their financial situation?

It is profit before the human condition.

That's what unfettered capitalism is.

 

[blackascoal]

Longer life does not equate to greater freedom. It is a poor figure especially when it is figured differently (it ignores early premature births that in other nations are simply untreated while the US, admirably IMO, tries to save them, those deaths are figured into the US average to its detriment, well that and the obesity issue.)

Your goal is maximum care, mine is maximum freedom. I believe in a balance and do not believe that we should ignore the cost of freedom when figuring the cost of conception to grave care.

I find "freedom" to be quite a stretch within the context of this conversation.

Are you aware that Medicare and Social Security are the only things keeping millions of American seniors alive?

What freedom have they lost by still being alive?

 

[Rune]

I find "freedom" to be quite a stretch within the context of this conversation.

Are you aware that Medicare and Social Security are the only things keeping millions of American seniors alive?

What freedom have they lost by still being alive?

Yeah, dammit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you aware that Medicare and Social Security are the only things keeping millions of American seniors alive?

We need to make sure they stay away from the 45,000 who die every year from not having insurance. Dammit, if we could only find a cure for these senseless deaths due to not having insurance or checks! (For the record, in all of recorded human history, no one has ever died from not having insurance or not getting a check in the mail.)

Social Security and Medicare, where do they come from? Well, theoretically, they come from US! It's money we've paid into the system our entire lives, through payroll deduction. It's not some magical pile of endless money that we can tap into for our every whim. Although, that is precisely how the trust fund has been treated over the years. You see, we had an entire generation which happened to be about twice the size of most normal generations, and while they were out there working and contributing, the trust fund became unusually large. Instead of our politicians leaving it be, they decided it wouldn't hurt to 'borrow' a little here and little there, and in a few decades, the entire trust fund has been squandered, and the generation who paid it in, is left with a system that is going to collapse. It is inevitable SS and Medicare will run out of money, but your particular side of the aisle, wants to ignore this problem and pretend it doesn't exist, while the right is trying to preserve the program by partial privatization. You are more than willing to let the ship sink, to avoid the hard choices now. When it comes to solutions, you had rather castigate conservatives and trump up a bunch of outright lies, like how they don't care about old people or their social security... and how many of them would die without it... while you watch the ship sink into the ocean. Amazing!

 

[blackascoal]

We need to make sure they stay away from the 45,000 who die every year from not having insurance. Dammit, if we could only find a cure for these senseless deaths due to not having insurance or checks! (For the record, in all of recorded human history, no one has ever died from not having insurance or not getting a check in the mail.)

Social Security and Medicare, where do they come from? Well, theoretically, they come from US! It's money we've paid into the system our entire lives, through payroll deduction. It's not some magical pile of endless money that we can tap into for our every whim. Although, that is precisely how the trust fund has been treated over the years. You see, we had an entire generation which happened to be about twice the size of most normal generations, and while they were out there working and contributing, the trust fund became unusually large. Instead of our politicians leaving it be, they decided it wouldn't hurt to 'borrow' a little here and little there, and in a few decades, the entire trust fund has been squandered, and the generation who paid it in, is left with a system that is going to collapse. It is inevitable SS and Medicare will run out of money, but your particular side of the aisle, wants to ignore this problem and pretend it doesn't exist, while the right is trying to preserve the program by partial privatization. You are more than willing to let the ship sink, to avoid the hard choices now. When it comes to solutions, you had rather castigate conservatives and trump up a bunch of outright lies, like how they don't care about old people or their social security... and how many of them would die without it... while you watch the ship sink into the ocean. Amazing!

:0) I love you back.

It is unfortunate that you are appalled by the truth my friend .. so let me repeat it. :0)

Social Security and Medicare are the only things keeping millions of American seniors ALIVE. Don't know about you, but that's where I start from in my determination of what should be supported. Should I support needless wars like the invasion of Iraq, or should I support the mechanisms that are keeping American seniors alive?

As for how they are funded .. we can start by keeping politicians from raiding the trust fund .. then claiming they've balanced the budget .. like Bill Clinton.

Sounds like you're on the Bush bandwagon of privatization .. and considering how much the market has lost, seniors would now be dropping like flies. Doesn't appear that you get the part about lives being at stake.

Lives .. real people .. not investments.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

:0) I love you back.

It is unfortunate that you are appalled by the truth my friend .. so let me repeat it. :0)

Social Security and Medicare are the only things keeping millions of American seniors ALIVE.

I disagree. Many people do depend on SS and M, but that is not what is keeping them living. They would find some other way to stay alive, if SS and M did not exist, wouldn't they? I'm not trying to be cold here, just get you to understand, people don't expire due to lack of an 'entitlement', it is never a valid cause of death. What you are doing, is "over-dramatizing" the situation, in order to project passion and urgency. The TRUTH, which you seem to be so interested in, is that most people wouldn't DIE if they didn't get their check from the Government. They would find some way to survive, some family member would likely take care of them, they would figure something out other than crawling into a corner in the fetal position and dying.

Don't know about you, but that's where I start from in my determination of what should be supported. Should I support needless wars like the invasion of Iraq, or should I support the mechanisms that are keeping American seniors alive?

Let's set the rhetorical Iraq stuff aside for another thread, shall we? You claim you want to support the mechanisms that enable seniors to draw a SS check... Okay... No one that I am aware of, has proposed ANY change to SS that would effect anyone currently drawing a check, or anyone over 55 would be drawing one soon, they would still get the exact same benefit under reform, the same check in the mail, no change whatsoever. The proposals for privatization, have been with YOUNGER people who are in the workforce, who will have NO SOCIAL SECURITY by the time they retire. We know the system is going to collapse, there is some debate over precisely when, but it's inevitable that sooner or later, we run out money and the system you support will go tits up.

As for how they are funded .. we can start by keeping politicians from raiding the trust fund .. then claiming they've balanced the budget .. like Bill Clinton.

...Or like Obama raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare! As the patient you care so much about, lay on his deathbed, Democrats are cleaning out his pockets to fund their latest stroke of brilliance that won't work!

Sounds like you're on the Bush bandwagon of privatization .. and considering how much the market has lost, seniors would now be dropping like flies. Doesn't appear that you get the part about lives being at stake.

Lives .. real people .. not investments.

Again, Bush or no one else I am aware of, has ever proposed touching a thing about current seniors Social Security checks. Why do you continue to lie about this, and spread disinformation? Is it because you know you can scare the old people into voting for Democrats this way? Stop trying to tell people that Republicans want to cut old people's social security, it's a flat out LIE. And when it comes right down to it, what is YOUR solution to the problem we face with insolvency of SS? To ride the pony as long as you can, and then pilfer the corpse? How the hell does THAT plan ensure the old people have Social Security? At least the Republicans have a responsible and reasonable idea of how we can transition people off of a government-controlled "fund" that will eventually collapse, and onto a plan of personal retirement ownership.

IF I were a 72 yr. old senior, I would feel much more comfortable NOT depending on the government to send me a check each month, but rather, having a checking and savings account with my name on it, and funds available when I need them, and also, assets I can pass on to my family when I die. In your caring and compassionate heart, doesn't that sound better than what you're proposing?

 

[Damocles]

I find "freedom" to be quite a stretch within the context of this conversation.

Are you aware that Medicare and Social Security are the only things keeping millions of American seniors alive?

What freedom have they lost by still being alive?

I believe that this "care" had a negative result on the nuclear family (often the elderly of a family are stuffed into homes where they can be ignored because everybody knows that they have this option), but both are irrelevant really to the theme of the thread... they are not the same thing as cradle to grave government care as your only option...

Neither of these are cradle to grave care, nor are they the only option available. The assumption is that a bunch of old people use this option so that means that we should all have no option but government care?

You fail to see how freedom applies because you do not believe that freedom has as much value as I do. I explained in my first post how freedom can, and is already in some places, be curbed when government has the power to exercise your responsibility as a monopoly.

 

[Althea]

Capitalism, on the other hand, works in a completely different way. With a capitalist, the consumer is of paramount importance. All that matters to a capitalist is consumer demand.

Incorrect. All that matters to a capitalist, is profit. As such, nitpicking the 'profitable' clients for health insurance will be the norm, leaving the high risk demographic to rot.

 

[apple0154]

I did elaborate, and this illustrates your problem. Before you even read the remainder of the post, you were already responding to what was said. You are incapable of hearing anyone out on this, your mind is made up... and believe me, we get that. But that does not mean you get to ignore points that are made, and that is what you continue to do as you repeat the same defeated points over and over. It has gotten a bit ridiculous. Until you can appropriately address the entirety of my post, we need not discuss this further.

Again, we ARE a nation of immigrants, most of whom came here because of our freedom and capitalism, and to escape statism and government control. The wealthy and elite in the countries you cite as your shining examples, routinely visit American hospitals and seek the treatment of American doctors, as opposed to their own nationalized system. If their system was so much better, why would they bother traveling here for medical care? In fact, why don't we see our rich and elite traveling to these great shining examples of glorious health care around the world that you speak of? Could it be because you're full of shit? I do believe so!

I told you people have travelled to foreign countries to try different medical procedures, be them holistic or some concoction of bats wings and jellied frogs. Statistics show the longevity in various countries. Some people contest what the statistics compose. I can't help that. Obviously, there is no pleasing everyone.

If you have specific points to make, make them one at a time and I'll address them one at a time because it's obvious you can't grasp my addressing them in total.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Would cradle-to-grave free health care and education be in the best interests of the American people?

It would depend on the quality of both.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, it IS about the money! You seem to think that changing the responsibility of who pays, somehow effects the cost.

That's exactly right. It does affect the cost.

You seem to believe covering millions of extra people is somehow going to cost less money.

Right, again.

You think creating considerably more demand for health care, will ultimately mean the cost goes down.

Three out of three. Excellent!!

You have no explanation for this, other than to point to "other countries" ...even though some of them are currently burning to the ground in chaos because they are broke. Apparently, you think money that comes from the government is just free for the taking, doesn't matter in the scheme of things, and doesn't really count. It just magically appears when needed, to fund and support whatever you dream up. You live in this fantasy world, far away from the rest of us, and there is no way to convince you that you are insane.

Now I'll explain my previous 3 answers. And, BTW, medical care is not what's causing countries to "burn to the ground".

OK. Point one. "You seem to think that changing the responsibility of who pays, somehow effects the cost."

Absolutely! Here's how. A government decides to supply a certain pill at no charge to the citizens. Said pill is currently sold for 75 cents which each citizen has to pay for out of pocket. Naturally, each citizen will decide if they want to purchase that pill. In the case of hypertension the vast majority of citizens have no symptoms. Are they going to spend $20.00/mth on medication that will not improve how they feel? The fact is they feel just fine.

Now, the government has a little chat with the drug company. Say, for example, 30% more people should be taking that drug but they feel fine so they are not buying it. The government will offer the pill to all the citizens requiring it, however, they're willing to pay 60 cents a pill. The price of the pill will drop 20% but sales will increase 30%. The drug company makes money, the citizens are healthier and all society saves by preventing citizens from having strokes, etc. Families are not devastated by the bread winner becoming incapacitated and the spouse and children are not thrown on the street.

Point two. "You seem to believe covering millions of extra people is somehow going to cost less money."

Exactly. Not only will the cost of medication decrease but the number of individuals who are stricken due to not taking the medication will be drastically reduced. The medical costs for a stroke patient is astronomical not to mention the cost of welfare for the remaining family members. Tally up the cost for one patient plus welfare for the spouse and, say, two children. Then compare that to $20.00/mth.

Point three. "You think creating considerably more demand for health care, will ultimately mean the cost goes down."

Of course that's what it means. I can't believe you wrote such a thing. How much did computers cost in 1990? 2000? Today? For being a capitalist it appears you're ignorant of the most basic aspect of capitalism.

There is no such animal as "Free Health Care." And when we are dealing with something as profoundly and personally as important as health care, the expense is no object.

OK. Now I know you’re insane. You’re a blithering idiot! Tell that to the 45,000 people who died last year.

We want the best, not mediocre. We aren't really interested in bargain basement health care, it's more important to us than cost.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. A person requiring an operation doesn’t give a damn if there are expensive paintings on the lobby walls or whether the chairs are leather or vinyl covered. The person seeking cancer treatments doesn’t give a damn if the gazebo is covered in roses. They want treatment. Plain and simple. Illness is not a holiday where one chooses the amenities of a hotel.

But what you propose doesn't even address cost, it deals with control of administration and insurance coverage, and shifts the burden away from capitalism to government control, but it does nothing to ensure lower cost. If anything, one could argue, such a system would greatly increase costs, because there will be a great increase in demand.... (see law of supply and demand)

Of course it lowers cost. One example is insurance companies have different forms required for doctors to fill out. One standardized form will save money. Every insurance company requires a building and staff. Surely you’re able to realize, if combined, the savings would be immense.

As to the law of supply and demand I covered that earlier.

Now the results of your plan: We have higher costs, less accessibility, and fiscally unsustainable nationalized health care. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

Wrong. Don’t take my word for it. RESEARCH! The cost in countries with government medical is anywhere from 1/3 to ½ less per capita. There is not ONE country with government medical where the cost surpasses the US. Not ONE. No exception. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. They’re just lies and distortions and Alice in Wonderland logic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Incorrect. All that matters to a capitalist, is profit. As such, nitpicking the 'profitable' clients for health insurance will be the norm, leaving the high risk demographic to rot.

You can say a capitalist only cares about profits, but this again contradicts logic. Let's set up an example. Two capitalists are selling tomatoes on the corner. Using the keystone method, let's say they start out selling tomatoes for $2, and they pay $1 for the tomatoes. That's $1 profit and $1 cost. Now, if profit were all that mattered, one capitalist might buy less than $1 tomatoes, they aren't as good in quality, but they are cheaper, meaning the capitalist will make more profit. But what happens instead, is the consumer demands higher quality, and he loses his customers to the other capitalist. No customers, no profits. Okay... now the other capitalist, wanting to make more profit, as you say, raises his price to $3, which would double his profits. But what happens? The consumer demands a better price, and they seek out the capitalist who is still selling for $2. You see, the capitalist can't ignore consumer demand and merely concern themselves with profit. If they do, they lose the business to some other capitalist, and have NO profit. It is more important than profits, for the capitalist to concern themselves with consumer demand. This may even be of greater importance than profit... Let's say one of our capitalist tomato sellers decides that he might sell more tomatoes if he puts up a tent shade over his stand, so his customers don't have to stand in the sun while they shop... the result, it costs him more to do this, so it eats into his profits a bit, but he gains more customers. More customers equates to greater profits, even though his rate of profit is less than the capitalist without a tent shade.

Capitalists DO care about profits, don't get me wrong, it's just not THE most important thing, as you believe. Of greater importance, is consumer demand, because if you can't meet their demands, you have no customers, and with no customers, there is no profit.

And why are you talking about insurance companies in future tense, as if we don't have private insurance at this time, and if we do it, the insurance capitalists will nitpick profitable clients, etc.? You do realize this is currently the system we have, and have had for many years, correct? You do understand, this is the system YOU want to change? When we are talking about a product like insurance, "risk" is everything. The insurance company has to be able to factor risk into cost. They can cover high risk people, but the extra cost has to be offset in some way, and this means the lesser risk customers will have to pay a bit more, and/or maybe the high risk customer has to pay considerably more? That's not just how business works, it's how life works.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I told you people have travelled to foreign countries to try different medical procedures, be them holistic or some concoction of bats wings and jellied frogs. Statistics show the longevity in various countries. Some people contest what the statistics compose. I can't help that. Obviously, there is no pleasing everyone.

If you have specific points to make, make them one at a time and I'll address them one at a time because it's obvious you can't grasp my addressing them in total.

Tell me, are they happy with bats wings and frog jelly, as opposed to modernized American health care? Should we simply abandon these billion dollar research projects and focus on bats and frogs instead? Wow, seems like we could save a LOT of money that way!

Statistics show nearly ALL foreign people of wealth and means, will travel to the US for medical treatment of life-threatening illness. Statistics also show that nearly no one in the US will venture elsewhere for such treatment.... save for the bat wing and frog jelly enthusiast. IF your foreign examples of health care were so great and wonderful, we'd see people flocking there for treatment, and we don't.... we see them flocking HERE instead!

You've addressed all the points one at a time and in total, it makes no difference, all your points have been refuted and you have no rebuttal to the points you've been presented. You can continue to repeat your points, one at a time or in total, it won't matter, you are still wrong, and still haven't addressed the counterpoints.

 

[apple0154]

We need to make sure they stay away from the 45,000 who die every year from not having insurance. Dammit, if we could only find a cure for these senseless deaths due to not having insurance or checks! (For the record, in all of recorded human history, no one has ever died from not having insurance or not getting a check in the mail.)

Social Security and Medicare, where do they come from? Well, theoretically, they come from US! It's money we've paid into the system our entire lives, through payroll deduction. It's not some magical pile of endless money that we can tap into for our every whim. Although, that is precisely how the trust fund has been treated over the years. You see, we had an entire generation which happened to be about twice the size of most normal generations, and while they were out there working and contributing, the trust fund became unusually large. Instead of our politicians leaving it be, they decided it wouldn't hurt to 'borrow' a little here and little there, and in a few decades, the entire trust fund has been squandered, and the generation who paid it in, is left with a system that is going to collapse. It is inevitable SS and Medicare will run out of money, but your particular side of the aisle, wants to ignore this problem and pretend it doesn't exist, while the right is trying to preserve the program by partial privatization. You are more than willing to let the ship sink, to avoid the hard choices now. When it comes to solutions, you had rather castigate conservatives and trump up a bunch of outright lies, like how they don't care about old people or their social security... and how many of them would die without it... while you watch the ship sink into the ocean. Amazing!

No one is ignoring the problem. It's people like Ronald Dumsfeld who said war with Iraq was an option they could afford. Maybe it's time to cut the military down to size so that situation doesn't arise in the future and that appears to be part of the Dem's plan. In other words medical care for everyone goes to the top of the list like the average home owner puts the mortgage at the top of the list and the purchase of a holiday or new car further down the list.

The Repubs don't believe in government programs so they used a two-pronged approach. First, get rid of any surplus by blowing it on a useless war. Second, cut taxes. It's like a guy buying a new car when the home needs a new roof and the children need new shoes. The guy simply says, "Sorry, no money left." So, the wife buys the new shoes and gets a new roof and tells her husband, "Let's see which purchases are repossessed."

Maybe some people look at it as making "hard choices" but the choice is really quite easy. Medical care. Pensions. The needs of people come first. If there's money for new street lamps, great. If not, the old ones stay. If there's money for statue in the local park, great. If not, paint the guy's name on an old piece of wood and nail it on a cedar picket. If there's money for statues and street lamps and sidewalks and god knows what else taxes go for then there's money for medical care and pensions, at least pensions sufficient to keep people alive. There's nothing difficult about the choices unless one is confounded between lights and sidewalks.

 

[apple0154]

I disagree. Many people do depend on SS and M, but that is not what is keeping them living. They would find some other way to stay alive, if SS and M did not exist, wouldn't they? I'm not trying to be cold here, just get you to understand, people don't expire due to lack of an 'entitlement', it is never a valid cause of death. What you are doing, is "over-dramatizing" the situation, in order to project passion and urgency. The TRUTH, which you seem to be so interested in, is that most people wouldn't DIE if they didn't get their check from the Government. They would find some way to survive, some family member would likely take care of them, they would figure something out other than crawling into a corner in the fetal position and dying.



Let's set the rhetorical Iraq stuff aside for another thread, shall we? You claim you want to support the mechanisms that enable seniors to draw a SS check... Okay... No one that I am aware of, has proposed ANY change to SS that would effect anyone currently drawing a check, or anyone over 55 would be drawing one soon, they would still get the exact same benefit under reform, the same check in the mail, no change whatsoever. The proposals for privatization, have been with YOUNGER people who are in the workforce, who will have NO SOCIAL SECURITY by the time they retire. We know the system is going to collapse, there is some debate over precisely when, but it's inevitable that sooner or later, we run out money and the system you support will go tits up.



...Or like Obama raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare! As the patient you care so much about, lay on his deathbed, Democrats are cleaning out his pockets to fund their latest stroke of brilliance that won't work!



Again, Bush or no one else I am aware of, has ever proposed touching a thing about current seniors Social Security checks. Why do you continue to lie about this, and spread disinformation? Is it because you know you can scare the old people into voting for Democrats this way? Stop trying to tell people that Republicans want to cut old people's social security, it's a flat out LIE. And when it comes right down to it, what is YOUR solution to the problem we face with insolvency of SS? To ride the pony as long as you can, and then pilfer the corpse? How the hell does THAT plan ensure the old people have Social Security? At least the Republicans have a responsible and reasonable idea of how we can transition people off of a government-controlled "fund" that will eventually collapse, and onto a plan of personal retirement ownership.

IF I were a 72 yr. old senior, I would feel much more comfortable NOT depending on the government to send me a check each month, but rather, having a checking and savings account with my name on it, and funds available when I need them, and also, assets I can pass on to my family when I die. In your caring and compassionate heart, doesn't that sound better than what you're proposing?

You keep talking like that and 3-D will be all over this thread!