Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed gov should provide health care.

Facts, me arse ...

And ignorant sarcasm as rebuttal has no place in this forum ...

 

I said nothing as sarcasm. The fact that you took it that way says reams about *you* instead of me.

 

lol, I moved nothing. I'm showing an example as to why it's not a commodity.

no it doesn't.

We limit care as well, under our system.

can't get the treatment here either, using insurance.

of course it does. If you are an elderly alcoholic, you can't get a liver transplant.

uh, that was on topic.

and yet, they have better results with better care and pay less for it. Weird.

I have thoroughly supported that premise. You not liking that changes nothing.

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably *is* a duck. And health care has every characteristic of a commodity, including price differentiation, the law of supply and demand, and multiple suppliers.

 

When government sets spending limits based on government budgets you *ALWAYS* get less than when free markets are involved. It's what is going to happen to Medicare in a few years when benefit payouts get cut to only covering 60% of medical costs instead of 80% it pays today. It's what is going to happen to Soc Security just a few years later. It's what happens to Medicaid every day as state level and federal level funding budgets get used up before the end of the fiscal year.

We already had this happen to SSDI. Only the GOP diverting funds from SS to SSDI saved paraplegics and quadriplegics from getting a 25% cut in benefits. And all that solution did was to bring the financial crisis of SS closer to today!

 

So you keep going from "You want free healthcare" to (imagine loud obnoxious font) "I did not say that" to "yeah... you want free healthcare" and again "I did not say that". Well, here is proof you did say it. Very childish!

And then you feign memory loss. Suddenly forgetting what you yourself asked. I responded to your question: I shouldn't need to have a savings account for healthcare. I will pay up front. The only thing we can rescue from this is that you are again saying that "I" want free healthcare. Which you denied saying.

I have said it at least 4 times. The difference is the same as the difference between the life of a car and the life of a human being. Now, if you don't see the difference between the life of a car and a human life, then you will maintain your delusion that they're the same. And it would be sign of a deep problem for which I can't help you. Only professional help would. Which, BTW, Republicans want to exclude from your healthcare. So you better hurry. Just in case....

You do know why Republicans can't come up with a plan to replace Obamacare, right? Because Obamacare is the Republican healthcare plan. Obama adopted it so we would at least have something in place, and hoping that people would see the shortcomings (which they did) and Republicans in Congress would work to fix them (which they refused to do until now)

Which again demonstrates that "thinking" is not your forte.

I don't know. Maybe... I'm only talking about Healthcare insurance. I lived for several years in a country where there is a government-owned company that provides those. Doesn't work very well, though. Maybe because it's an underdeveloped country, or maybe because of the nature of the activity. But that's a different matter. They also have universal healthcare insurance developed in the model of the U.K.'s. And that one works fairly well. In any case, better than our system. So much so that medical tourism from the U.S. is a huge source of income, and produces thousands of jobs.

Great! But mentioning that slavery would violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even citing the 13th Amendment would have been more efficient in making that point, you know.

Not me. I don't know about you, though.

It does for 40% of American working-age uninsured, according to a study commissioned by Bush in 2002... This was up from 25% in 1993. Those are the increased chances of early death for people That's about 45 thousand people per year according to the subsequent 2009 update.. But that's just Science. I know Science is meaningless to Republicans. Fact is that in countries with Universal Healthcare 0 people die because of lack of health insurance. So if even 1 person dies, that person's right to life has been violated.

Ah... Just as I thought. So you are advocating for free healthcare. You want to "enslave" (using your definition) hospitals and doctors and... everything else you said. Shame on you! (tsk tsk)

Me? Have the same rights as a rich man? Unthinkable! It's like the Declaration of Independence says ".... That all men are created equal, but the rich were created more equal than everybody else..." right?

Anyway... I expect basic healthcare needs to be covered for everybody. That doesn't include a monthly botox treatment.

This shows your absolute ignorance. Rationing in the universal healthcare system of any developed country would be unthinkable. You would see protests and Molotov cocktails flying. There have been very notable accusations which have resulted in lawsuits, scandals, resignations.... Not actually for "rationing",(that I can recall) but for refusing coverage due to abuse. But, even that, usually generates a scandal that makes the papers, because it's so "unfathomable"

In the U.S., on the other hand, there is rationing. I have experienced it first hand. And it almost costs the life of my wife and my unborn son. And it would have if I hadn't had some savings to pay out of my own pocket, even though I was fully insured

I have never said anything even remotely similar to forcing others to pay for me. That's just in your made-up terminology.

BTW, I'm going to skip all these argument based on your arbitrary redifinition of words. I use words only as defined by common use, which can usually be found in dictionaries or (when used in an academic context) in academic papers.

No need to give examples... because you did. Many many examples of "Psychological Projection"

You told me what your arbitrary definition is. I don't care. Healthcare is a right.. period. Collective, individual, sexual or monogamous... you can take your pick of the adjectives because it makes no difference to me.

This is my one and only argument. Healthcare is a right! In the same sense that life is a right (whatever sense that is, in your mind). And it's a right, not only because it is so declared in the Universal Decaration of Human Rights, but because it's an extension of each person's right to life. Not to mention liberty and their pursuit of happiness. You're not very happy if you're sick. Nor do you have the liberty to jump into your cold swimming pool. This does not mean that the government gives healthcare away for free. One way or another, people will pay for it. How they pay for it.... TBD. There are many options: a single-payer system funded by taxes (which I personally believe is the right way), a single-payer system funded by a combination of taxes and employee/employer based contributions, a multi-payer system where people contribute to a collective fund and partially pay for services, a multi-payer system where people choose between a government plan which competes with private insurance, a multi-payer system where the government pays insurance corporations, .... and many many more.

So that's that for the "collective" "individual" nonsense. A ploy to veer attention away from the above. Which should be the only thing in this debate, because it ends all arguments.

Absolutely! There is also a human right to food and shelter. But, again, you are changing the subject.

No!

Your continuing attempts at changing the subject indicate that you have no arguments to discuss healthcare. So, for the sake of brevity and maintaining focus, I will hop over attempts to change the subject. Which is in the Title of this thread, and I explained my position above starting with "This is my one and only argument". You have something to say about that? Say it. You don't? ... Don't bother because it's obvious....

Oh.. no no no. People should not have to work. They have a right to sit in their home with their fat ass on the sofa and watch TV all day and the government pays for food, their home and healthcare. With a Hospital fully-equipped and fully staffed with government owned slaves at every corner. Even if you live 500 miles away from any other human being.. Oh... and the house, Sofa and TV supplied by the Government for free, of course. Says so right in the Constitution!

Since you have been struggling to assemble your Strawman, I just thought I'd help. If you want to argue against your Strawman, take your quote from there. If you want to argue healthcare, see the paragraph that starts with "This is my one and only argument"

 

Suddenly forgetting what you yourself asked. I responded to your question: I shouldn't need to have a savings account for healthcare. I will pay up front. [/QUOTE]

They are not mutually exclusive you know and quite advisable to have such a savings account so you can pay up front. Just like when your fridge goes out or you have a water bust.

You don't save money for emergencies and other necessary high expenses?

 

Not based on life expectancy as related to cost. Here, the decision is based on willingness to pay. It makes it an individual choice as opposed to a government choice. A far different thing!

But you can't get the treatment at all in England! You just proved my point for me! Nationalized health care rations health care. We don't in the US. *AND* as I pointed out, the treatment has already been offered for free here in the US.

That's based on survivability, not on life expectancy!

Uh, no, it wasn't. It was a deflection because you didn't want to actually address the issue. Because you *can't* address the issue.

Actually they *don't* have better results. We checked when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. The US has a higher survival rate for almost *all* cancers. And for infant mortality? The US counts any baby that takes a single breath as a live birth. If that baby then dies later it counts as infant mortality. Not so in any of the nationalized systems. If the baby dies within 24 hours it is counted as a stillbirth and not as infant mortality. So their results look better for infant mortality.

Figures lie and liars figure is no where as true as in health care statistics.

No, you haven't. All you've done is claim that health care is not a commodity. It's the argumentative fallacy known as the Big Lie, after Goebbles. Tell a big lie long enough and often enough and it becomes the truth - at least in the teller's mind!

You have *not* shown that there are not multiple vendors of health care, that there is not price differentiation in health care, and that it's offerings don't follow the law of supply and demand.

Just pick Lasik eye surgery! As the supply has gone up the price has gone down - BIG TIME! And there are a *lot* of suppliers and different prices and different levels of service.

So stop just making a claim over and over and thinking that actually proves anything![/quote]

 

When others pay for your healthcare, then doesn't it make it free for you?

 

No memory loss here. You did *NOT* qualify your statement that you shouldn't need to have a savings account. Besides, if you don't have a savings account just how are you going to pay up front? Do you actually make enough every month to pay for breast cancer treatment up front?

 

The issue is *NOT* what the insurance is for. The issue is how the insurance itself works. And you simply refuse to address that because you know it will undercut your assertions!

Not every thing covered by health insurance concerns life saving treatment, e.g. breast reconstruction after cancer surgery.

The fact is tht the insurance for health care works *exactly* the same was as car insurance. You pay a little every month so you don't have catastrophic money problems if something happens.

 

Nope. The Heritage Foundation withdrew the proposal and the GOP never supported it because it was Fascism. Of course, *that* is why the Marxist Democrats thought so highly of the proposal!

 

nope. a TV is a commodity. Healthcare, is not. supply and demand, in terms of market forces, do not apply to healthcare, for the reasons stated.

 

no it didn't.

 

I notice you don't deny that you said it. Because you did!

But health care insurance works the same as all the rest. If there is a problem with health care insurance then there is a problem with all other insurance sectors.

Again, nationalized health care simply cannot provide the level of health care we have here in the US. All you have to do is talk to anyone on Medicaid!

Nationalized health care systems simply do *NOT* work as well as our system. The NHS system, for instance, *does* use the QALY metric and *does* determine treatment options based on annual budgets from the government. And medical tourism *into* the US is quite common, especially for complicated or difficult surgeries.

In order to use the NHS in England you have to be an "ordinarily resident" person. In other words you have to have a residence and live there as a regular part of life. Medical tourism to England therefore is basically by the rich that can establish a secondary resident or it is for access to private doctors and health care.

 

so, you acknowledge we ration care. Thank you.

yes, we ration care. You acknowledged this above.

lol

nope. It was on topic and I addressed it.

source citation please.

nope, I've shown why it's not a commodity.

of course I have. As explained, when you have a heart attack, you have no choice where you will go, or what treatment you will receive. Either go where they take you, get the treatment they give you, or die.

elective cosmetic surgery. Not healthcare.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not making a claim. I'm correctly pointed out healthcare is not a commodity.

 

That's a weird statement. I don't know if it's right or not, but it's weird because it's pointless.

I understand that "reason" never comes into play in the extreme right. It does for the rest of humanity, though. I'm tryiing to think of anything in which "reasonble" doesn't come into play, and can't...

This message is, for the most part, a repetition of your misconceptions already addressed. Let's see if there is something new or interesting.

Oh... so "paying taxes" is what you now arbitrarily define as "slavery"

Well... you know what they say about the only two things that are sure in life....

I don't know what you'll pay. But chances are that, whatever it is, it will be less. In a one-payer system you won't be paying for the Corporate Insurance CEO's Christmas Bonus.

I use the idiom frequently. Usually to defend something I like from an attack For example "Where is it written that Scotch with Coke isn't a good combination?" (I don't do that, but know people who do) or "Where is it written that Dessert before the main course is bad?". In this case advocating for "Scotch with Coke: and "Desert"

Given that your phrase was "Where is it written that Fascism requires you to buy a product from a private company?"

So if you're using the "idiom" and not the phrase in a literal sense, that would sound a lot as if you were advocating for Fascism.

It was in Mussolini's time. Not anymore. It has a different connotation today.

Are you serious????

Marx was already dead when Mussolini was born! (I think... or very close). It's like a kindergarten-level misrepresentation of all those concepts.

Ok... you have taken this "arbitrary definitions" game to a state of complete idiocy.

There is a difference between "Understanding" and making up your own definitions...

 

Enslaving others to serve your needs is a violation of natural, Creator-given, individual rights. *I* don't need someone else creating a document to inform me of that.

Nationalized health care is *certainly* part of the meme "from each according to ability and to each according to need". It's the only justification you can offer for nationalized health care. It's the only justification you *have* offered!

Malarky! One of my older son's friends just got a job that has health care. He did without health insurance for over a decade and didn't die!

A *large* number of millennials today don't have health insurance. They are not dying by droves either!

The issue in the US today are lots of problems *other* than direct healthcare. These include smoking, traffic deaths, stress, illicit drug use, and high blood pressure. Life expectancy at 65 is almost the same for the US as any European nation. The problems are being found in younger age groups, i.e. those who normally need *less* healthcare!

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

I didn't say I was advocating "free" anything. Someone pays, even for emergency room care. I said that if they are dying they can go to the emergency room and be treated!

The DoI is speaking of equal opportunity not equal outcomes. Once again your jealousy, envy, and greed just comes shining through! If you don't have the same outcome as someone else that is not a condemnation of the other guy in any way. The mere fact that you are concerned about how much others make just highlights your jealousy and envy!

Of course you do expect government entitlements! Its what *all* Marxist Democrats have come to expect. Cradle to grave, cradle to grave, never happy with anything else!

 

Indeed -- your unwillingness to put your money where your mount is and actually embrace single payer is most assuredly sad.

 

Nope. *WE* don't ration care. Individuals make their own choice as to what they want to pay for. That is *NOT* rationing. It's no different than deciding if you want to pay for ribeye or flank steak at the grocery store!

You can't even distinguish between individual choice and rationing! And you expect *anyone* to have any credence in what you say?

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

No refutation as usual!

Sorry. You did *NOT* answer because you know it would undercut your argument!

ROFL!! You can't do a simple google search?

1. type in "google.com" in a new tab in your web browser and hit enter
2. when google comes up, type in "breast cancer survival by country" and hit enter
3. The first page that comes up will be a webmd.com page.
4. Click on the webmd page.
5. Read the article

You will find this statement: "The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer"

I've gone back through the thread. All you have ever done is say that healthcare is not a commodity. Never one single fact or reason has been presented by you to support that assertion. Repetition of a false claim doesn't make it true.

I just talked to a pair of EMT's in our local ambulance service. If you are lucid after a heart attack and have been able to be stabilized you *can* specify which hospital to go to. If you are not lucid or can not be stabilized then the EMT's will decide for you. They both pointed out that if you cannot be stabilized then it's a crapshoot as to whether you will die or not. Many heart attack victims die before they can even be transported let alone stabilized! Your treatment *can* be determined by where you want to go!

Of course it is health care. Cosmetic surgery has HUGE impacts on self-perception, especially for women who need a radical mastectomy! Health care includes psychological needs as well as physical needs. Most insurance companies recognize that today!

You haven't supported your claim that healthcare is not a commodity in any manner. Repetition is not proof.

 

Says who? You? This is what is called an opinion.

I disagree. Healthcare, like any other commodity requires investment. People and corporations must invest dollars into technology, eduction, facilities, research. We have one of the most advanced medical systems in the world because of this private infusion of money. You think its a human right, so you are good with just giving it away without concern of the investment which has lead to the best medical systems the world has even saw. Your position is ideological at best and naive at its worse.

Simply being born, and converting oxygen to carbon monoxide isn't enough to guarantee people anything.

And in your short sighted bleeding heart position, you fail to see that removing the personal gain from the equation also removes the investment of dollars resulting in lack of technological developments, people desiring to enter the medical field, outdated and undersized facilities, and lack of research.

People who advocate socialist policies typically fail at seeing HOW we arrived were we are.

Why shouldn't they? Insurance companies are in the business of mitigating and covering risk. High risk individuals do one of two things. 1. They drive up the cost for everybody else, as they are incapable of covering the premium which substantiates their level of risk, and 2. They get subsidized by the government which is paid for by others through taxation.

In either case, the people you desire to cover get a free ride. Which is the typical MO of socialist policies.

Before Obamacare, nobody was denied care. End of story. It may bankrupt them, but why shouldn't it?

 

It's amusing how you fixate upon my support of the inclusive, efficient, single-payer system of all advanced nations and of Medicare, whilst you are unable to cite even a single example of your airy-fairy ideological pipe dream.

 

I go back to the example of someone becoming infected with jaundice, their vital organs are shutting down, should they be allowed to die because their state doesn't align with insurance companies balance sheets. This is called irresponsible capitalism my friend, and the drug behemoths like Pfizer and Merrick are just as guilty. Metaphorically, its time someone shot a harpoon into the systems gears that puts the ill as second-class citizens, and money as first-class citizens. You can have responsible capitalism, but none of this is hallmarks of responsible capitalism. If insurance companies are really in it for the money, then they need to take a good luck at the industry they are in, and what they market themselves as.

Maybe, just maybe, the premiums people are anchored down with, should be one-time premiums. How can you say before Obamacare, absolutely no one was denied care, when at that time, these same irresponsible capitalists at UnitedHelathcare were able to deny, or serve people, on preexisting conditions?

 

go here: http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b181

"Decisions made by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) about whether the NHS should fund treatments are based on cost effectiveness. NICE methods guides refer to a threshold of £20 000-£30 000 (€22 000-€34 000; $30 000-$45 000) per quality adjusted life year (QALY).1 However, this is an arbitrary figure. Evidence on the public’s willingness to pay suggests that it should be higher. There is a lack of evidence on opportunity costs."

go here: http://www.webmd.boots.com/nhs/news/20130125/nhs-drug-decisions-flawed

Again, this was a matter of INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, not a factor of the medical system rationing care! *YOU* decided whether to pay or not, not the government!

ROFL! You just did right above! You are whining that *you* had to pay for medical care -- meaning you wish you could force others to pay for your costs!

ROFL! You won't find anything where I use anything other than dictionary definitions.

In other words you have noting of import to offer in refutation to any assertion I made. I din't expect you to have anything!

Had you done *ANY* research you would have found my definition was *NOT* arbitrary! I even gave you a quote from wikipedia to back up my assertion!

Health care *is* a right, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You have an absolute right to the healthcare you can provide. You do *not* have a right to enslave others to pay for your health care. And it is obvious that is what you want from your example of having to spend some of your savings on healthcare for your wife! You are only calling it a right in order to rationalize to yourself that others *should* be able to be enslaved to pay for your healthcare!

Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't say that you can enslave others in order to pay for your healthcare. It just says you have a right to health care. And you *do* - you have an individual right to the health care you can provide for yourself!

Pursuit of happiness is, again, an INDIVIDUAL pursuit. It does *NOT* give you license to enslave others in order to provide for your happiness!

"a multi-payer system where people contribute to a collective fund and partially pay for services" You just described PRIVATE INSURANCE - the system we had before Obamacare!

"a multi-payer system where people choose between a government plan which competes with private insurance" You just described Obamacare and it is DYING!

Jeeessshhhh! Can you offer *anything* that doesn't undercut your own argument?

Once again you just claim the argument won without actually having provided anything to support your assertions. This is just one more argumentative fallacy, the False Appeal to Authority.

Then why shouldn't government give us *all* free food, shelter, and clothing? Why is it only health care?

But, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing in support of your statement!

As usual, when you can't answer or the fallacy of your assertions is pointed out, you punt. Instead of admitting that your position is indefensible you just run away!

Your sarcasm is wasted. This *IS* what you are advocating for with your position that what is necessary for life should be a collective right!

It's not my strawman. It's what *YOU* are putting forth! If it is needed for life then it is a right. And when the consequences of that position is pointed out to you the only thing you have is a repetition of the claim that healthcare is a right and should be paid for by an enslaved collective.

If you can't support your position you might want to consider changing it!

 

Nope. Supply and demand applies to health care. As the supply of Lasik machines and technicians has grown, competition has driven the price down. That's *exactly* how it works with a commodity.

It works the same for *all* medicine. I am having cataract surgery in August. I got quotes from three different opthamologists before deciding on which to buy. Again, exactly like a commodity!