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

I'm ok with Supply and Demand. So long as it's adequately regulated to prevent abuses..

However, I don't think there is such a thing as an ideology (political or Economic) that can be applied blindly, though. That's the reason why I prefer discussions based on the real-world, rather than the purely academic.

 

So what is your solution?

 

No. So long as I pay for theirs.

No. I pay to whatever payment system is established.

That is exactly the issue.

Right. Not all of it concerns Life. Some of it concerns Liberty and other the Pursuit of Happiness.

Cool! But I'm only interested in Health Insurance in thi

Wrong! The Heritage Foundation (which is the same as the GOP) and the GOP (which are the same thing withdrew the proposal because they opposed everything that would make Obama succeed, even if it was good for the country. That was the precursor to the current Anti-patriotic Party (a.k.a Trump's Party)

No. But... so what? You want me to start writing "Don't put words in my mouth" in obnoxious font like you do? I have better taste (and better arguments) than that. Too irrelevant to pick a fight over.

Well.. you can tell that to the French, the British, the Canadians, the Australian, the Spanish.... and every country with nationalized healthcare. That should give them a good laugh!

Yeah! And Republicans did just that recently when they proposed cutting it from Obamacare. To see how the "talk" went, you can look at the townhalls. Or you can just click here. to find out that 87% of Americans In Medicaid expansion in states where there is a Republican Governor do not want changes. Drops all the way down to 85% in States with Democratic Governors.

Or pay. Same as here. Except here, you have to pay even if you are covered. Why is this even here? If a British tourist comes to the U.S. does Humana give them a free hip replacements just for asking? What idiocy are you trying to prove here?

Oh. You mean unlike here, where even British garbage collectors can afford medical tourism. What the hell is your point!!
I'm sure it's among the top 5 dumber ones you have ever made. But I'm curious if it's number 1.

 

First, money spent on education will go further than money spent on health care (assuming it is spent wisely) What is really needed is a more equitable system of allocating educational funding so that monies go where they are needed and not disproportionately to the richer districts.

Second, The health care industry could use a healthy dose of deregulation. Regulations that protect market share and discourage competition in particular. Others have pointed out reforms at the FDA are needed. Im sure there are more.

 

I didn't say current Medicare recipients would be without coverage!

WHY IS THE LEFT SO ENAMORED OF THE ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY KNOWN AS "THE STRAWMAN FALLACY"?

And of that 22M you speak of the CBO said 15M of them would be young people who drop insurance after the mandate goes away! Well Pete forbid they should get out from under the Marxist Democrat Fascism of Obamacare!

Of the remaining 7M just how many are able bodied single people that got Medicaid under Obama's waivers?

The bloated medical expenses will get dumped on the taxpayer in any case! Did you think there is a money tree in the Rose Garden that could be used to pay for this?

Nationalized health care is *NOT* the more successful paradigm unless you consider rationing health care to be a better solution! that's the kind of solution that sends granny home to die instead of providing a pacemaker! And *you* consider that to be a better paradigm?

Almost everything you mention here would simply be replaced by an inefficient, bloated government bureaucracy covered by public employment unions and therefore unable to be fired.

The minute you start negotiating lower prices for drugs you will kill the new drug market. So you better be happy with what we have today. you aren't going to get much new.

My solution is the free market without government interference and with free and fair competition. Just like we have seen with Lasik eye surgery! Just like we have seen with cataract surgery!

 

I don't think healthcare was what Marx had in mind. (Note to those who have no idea what Marxism is: read the preceding as "sarcasm". Actually I know it wasn't)

Yes. That's the expected response from the right when you provide Science.

That's hilarious!

Sure. Because nobody smokes or does drugs in other countries, right?

Wait wait! Your next line is going to be: "nobody has worse medical history than us" And you are correct.

Having lived in a country with universal healthcare (and, even more, nationalized healthcare) let me explain how this works. You see, in our country healthcare coverage is an employee benefit. Companies entice good employees to work and stay by offering them healthcare coverage. The benefit disappears in a Universals Healthcare System, right? I mean, offering healthcare coverage is not a "benefit" in a place where everybody has healthcare coverage anyway.

Would you like to take a guess as to how they solve this "quagmire"? Simple: they offer in-house medical personnel. So when you work for a company that wants to offer benefits (which is just about all), they have a physician (and maybe a nurse, and in larger companies a fully staffed and equipped clinic). So when you work here, you have a regular checkup at least every 2 months (sometimes more, if you have some condition). You know what that means, right? Things like blood Pressure, eating disorder, high blood-sugar, stress... are controlled before they become chronic. Others like smoking, cancer, heart problems, ... are addressed early. Even drug use is controlled.

So yes... we have a much higher index of these. That's because we have such a lousy Heatlhcare system that doesn't protect life.

Really? Now that's an interesting piece of data. Seriously. I didn't know that. So life expectancy in the US after the age when universal healthcare kicks in is about the same as in Europe? Now that's an interesting piece of data. Can I have your reference for that? It would be very useful in some other debates I'm having.

Yes! And it's the group that most benefits from what I wrote above.

[obnoxious font deleted]

You didn't say it. But you were advocating it. You just weren't aware of it.

When they are dying, it's not healthcare because there is not much health to care for.

The Declaration is not speaking of neither opportunity nor outcomes. It's speaking of rights. Why doesn't it surprise me at this point that you haven't read the Declaration of Independence?

 

Are you referring to health education, such as nutrition? Please explain because your point is not very clear.

How much deregulation are you talking about? Because the history of medicine was born out of an unregulated cottage industry that for centuries was dominated by superstition. Here in the US, snake oil and elixirs were sold promising everything to a gullible public desperate to relieve pain, all the while being poisoned by charlatans with no formal education and a ton of chutzpah.

Yes, the FDA is not perfect, but precisely because of the politics of greed that prevents them from doing their job effectively. The way their rules are, in particular regards to generic drug licensing is slow not because of their inefficiency, but because of the lobbying efforts of the big drug companies who benefit from the current system. One of my pet peeves is with drug supplements, who also represent a multi-billion dollar industry and who have continuously lobbied to prevent FDA oversight of these supplements. As it stands now, any manufacturer can put just about anything without any real testing and slap whatever label they want on it. It's not until people start dying that the FDA gets involved, such was the case with ephedra.

So deregulation, sorry, that just takes us back in history to a time when witch doctors wore white coats.

 

Marx had it *all* in mind! From cucumbers to plowshares to aspirin to bread!

You have yet to provide any actual science! Stating that health care is a right is not science. It's your Marxist worldview!

You are the one that claimed people will die if they don't have healthcare, not me!

Not like here. You can't force people to live a health lifestyle, not like they do in Europe. One of the biggest problems Americans have is that they don't walk *anywhere*. They live in suburbs with centralized grocery stores so you have to drive to work and drive to the grocery store and drive to the restaurant and drive to the post office and on and on and on. Most Americans simply don't get enough exercise. in Europe you can walk to the train station and go anywhere, local markets are everywhere, and for travelers hostels are near train stations! Europeans walk much more than Americans do!

That might work for a large company with a centralized campus. It won't work for plumbers, carpenters, etc that are self-employed. It won't work for a McDonald's franchise owner with one or two stores.

go here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14070090

This isn't because of nationalized medicine for the elderly.

"Elderly Americans have a higher chance of surviving heart disease and many cancers than their counterparts in other rich countries, she says. Where the US lags behind is what happens at a much younger age."

"It's likely not the quality of medical care itself that is the problem but access to it. Medical insurance for all might help."

The second statement is just another talking point lie. The problem is that younger people don't make use of the medical care that is available. My doctor says hardly anyone younger than 40 comes in for regular annual physicals. It's not till things began to catch up a person that they make use of the medical system. Like having a friend or co-worker have colon cancer or breast cancer, etc.

That may be what you thought you saw but I assure you, *NOTHING* government provides is free. Nothing in this life is free. Not food, not clothes, not shelter, not phones, not TV, not ANYTHING!

It is healthcare till the die. Even if it is just morphine to make it easier. Pain management *is* healthcare.

You have the right to pursue happiness. That means equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Pursuing happiness is not enslaving others to fulfill your wants!

 

And now you are being obtuse.

Moving right along ...

 

No, they can open a private-practice and charge whatever they want, for instance, in implants - which are not yet covered for reimbursement by the National Healthcare System. Most sign onto the NHS and have a very comfortable life-style. (The NHS is a major French black-hole for wasting money. The French are sick of EVERYTHING.)

There is no subsequent obligation of any kind upon earning a degree that is virtually tuition-free. Graduates of all French Tertiary Education do what they want. (I know even of one who practices in the UK, which means he must have gone through the British rigamarole of passing exams. And I know of one Brit doctor here in France who did the same in order to establish his practice.)

 

Why should science be necessary to prove the benefit of state-provided HealthCare. What planet do you live on. (The US?)

National HealthCare in Europe is a privilege that they expect of their governments. And they willingly pay for it out of their taxation.

They, the people, decided that at the ballot box.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhh ....

 

So what you're telling me is that I could, assuming I could speak French (which I can't), and assuming I could immigrate legally (which is probably a lot harder than to do so to the US), I could move there, go to medical school (for free), and then go do anything I want wherever I want?

 

Referring to general education. Focus on the disadvantaged. We need to get back to teaching kids what they need to know instead of what they want to know.

Focus on regulations that protect market share and discourage competition. There still is a lot of superstition in medicine. The placebo effect. It actually works. Has taught me that mentality has much to do with health.

We are way over regulated and much of it only aids the profiteers.

 

As you have been shown there is no benefit from state-provided healthcare. State provided health care rations care. The people can't get the treatment they want. They are told by government what they can have.

Europeans are used to being *subjects* of their government and receiving "privileges" from it. It's apparently in their DNA. Why should the independent, sovereign citizens in America settle for what Europe has?

When *I* decide I need cataract surgery I can contact a doctor of my choice and have it scheduled and have it completed in six weeks. I don't have to wait for a government bureaucrat to tell me when I can have it or *if* I can get it done at all!

 

Can you show me a single case of somebody dying from lack of medical care before the Affordable Care Act?

 

No. The Science that I mentioned was the one about the estimated 45 thousand deaths due to lack of health insurance in 2009. . That's a Scientific study. Click here to view. What is a right and what is not isn't a Scientific issue. It's a Moral and Ethical one. Which doesn't mean it can't be analyzed objectively.

I didn't say your son's friend would!

That's not the problem. That's just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that we don't get regular checkups. Because it's too expensive, inconvenient, ... some might even need to take sick-time off. Those problems simply don't exist in a Universal Healthcare System.

It sure will. Plumbers and carpenters, if they are self-employed, are able to go to the doctor any time and they don't even think about "cost". Any McDonald's or small business simply has a contract with a physician who comes in once every one or two months, You don't need much to do a proper checkup. Small businesses have basic equipment like scales on site and even iself-administered sugar-level and cholesterol tests. The manager relinquishes their office for a couple of hours, and they get their checkup. Somebody is tasked with taking all prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy (I assume now that's done electronically), and then pick them up in the afternoon, so everybody has their medication the same day and they don't even need to go to the drug store. All of this is embedded in the system. And nobody even thinks twice about it. When you plan opening a company, you just plan for a place for the doctor to work, just like you plan for where the supervisor will sit to fill in their reports... Even if it's the same place.

Quality of life increases, expectancy of life increases, sick time decreases (big plus for the employer).... Lot's of life, liberty and happiness to spread all around... And it's waaaay less expensive for taxpayers.

Thanks for the article. Very informative! This conclusion you state here is not supported by it, though. I know there are probably many other factors that contribute too. For example, the fact that you survived without proper healthcare until you're 65 means you're "genetically" healthy, or that you are rich, or you are used to spending much of your income in healthcare...etc. But I'm sure that getting basic healthcare at no extra cost to you (or low cost) when you need it most won't hurt either.

Yep! You need to have one tough heart and a very good immune system to make it to 65 under our healthcare system. It's a shame that most people don't reproduce at 65, because those people have some damn-good genes!

It's completely bewildering to me how the right can quote part of an article as gospel truth, because it suits their agenda, and then dismiss the part that doesn't as a lie. Ever hear of "cherry picking"?

True. But that doesn't contradict the conclusion in the article.

In any case, read in my previous message how that problem is easily solved by Universal Healthcare. The paragraph start with "Would you like to take a guess as to how they solve this "quagmire"?" Bottom line: give people access. That's how you solve it. And, as I showed, a win for the person, a a win for their employer, and a win for the system.

Yes but very expensive. Prevention is much cheaper. And it's what universal healthcare is about: caring for health. Which is better done when you have health.

No idea what the outcome has to do with anything I've said. Except, of course, that the expected outcome of "pursuit of happiness" is ..."happiness". Even if it's not always the case, protecting things that are more likely to produce that outcome in most people (like health) is more reasonable than protecting something that does not (like the profits of Insurance Corporations).. But that's too obvious. So I'm guessing it has to do with one of those arbitrary definitions you make up every now and then. Like "enslaving". I have nothing to say about any of those because I don't feel I have the right to interrupt you when you crawl into your imaginary world.

 

I question the conclusions of the study. Table 1 shows 3% of the privately insured died during the measurement period. It also shows that 3.3% of the uninsured died during the measurement period.

And while this does show a higher percentage of the uninsured died this is very, VERY close. The study does not provide a confidence level for any of these statistics. It is highly likely that these results are within the margin of error.

You said people would die without insurance. He *is* people. And he didn't die. And according to the results in Table 1 of your study he wasn't significantly more at risk than my son who had insurance!

 

Regular checkups won't help. The doctor can't force you to change your lifestyle. He'll just tell you every year that you are overweight and out of shape! There isn't a pill to fix that!

Most of the craftspeople I know won't take time off to go to the doctor. And you can't force them.

And where are you going to find a doctor to come into a McDonalds franchise site to do general physicals? If they don't exist then it's hard to do this. Are you going to fire an employee that refuses? Their medical information is private and they can't be forced to give it to anyone, let alone a company doctor. Without that information a doctor has a prolbem identifying ongoing issues. You can basically get by with a scale and an automated blood pressure cuff. And it still leaves with the problem of what do you do with those that refuse?

 

It's not *MY* conclusion. It was the conclusion of a doctor! And the point isn't how you got there but how long you survive after reaching that age! It shows that after age 65 our health care system provides the same longevity as a nationalized system.

And you can't force people to use the health care system. A large majority of our working population is covered by private insurance, usually at a low cost. And yet people don't use the system regularly for preventive care. Changing it to the government providing the insurance won't change anything!

I didn't dismiss anything. I gave a substantial reason for disagreeing with the conclusion. Again, a *huge* proportion of our population has access to health care, either via private insurance or Medicaid/Medicare. It isn't * having access* to health care that causes our problem. It is *actually accessing* the health care that doesn't happen. Less than 10% of the population has no access to healthcare. That 10% simply doesn't represent a large enough population to affect our overall health care results enough to drop us that far down the comparisons. If it did that 10% would soon die out!

Again, it *does* contradict it. The statement says the problem is "having access". The actual problem is *using the access". That is two entirely different things!

Again, the largest proportion of our population today *has* access to health care. It isn't a problem of "having access", it is a problem of "using the access". Along with our lifestyle as well!

Except the elderly already *have* the health, as my reference states! That doesn't keep people from dying!

You say you don't know what "outcomes' has to do with anything and then you turn around and talk about equalizing outcomes in the form of health care!

It's called cognitive dissonance. Holding two diametrically opposed ideas in your head at the same time. "I'm not concerned about outcomes but I want equal outcomes!"

 

That's some nasty measurement, isn't it?

I don't know what you're talking about. Confidence levels (95%) and intervals (CI) for each group of data are set everywhere, as far as I can see

Look... don't bother... . it was peer-reviewed before publication, and post-publication peer-reviewed hundreds of times. You're as likely to find a significant error as you are of finding an error in Principia.

Here's the important part: Do you want to know how many people die because of lack of healthcare insurance in all other developed nations in the world?

Zero!

Are you actually telling me you were serious??? I didn't say all people who don't have insurance die. Nor does the study. I'm amazed that I have to clarify that.

What the study says is, among other things, that he has a greater chance of dying before he's 65 than your son. At which point they are endowed with the blessings of a single-payer system by our Almighty Legislation. And the fact that their right to healthcare is not protected before they're 65 is a violation of their human right to have equal opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now... whether they get to live to see their 65th birthday or not, specifically in the case of your son and his friend, obviously also depends on many factors. The large majority of which cannot be influenced by legislation. Either because of physical and other similar reasonable limitations, or because of conflicts with other rights (such as their right to liberty),. But healthcare certainly can.

You would be amazed at the power of persuasion of a good physician. First hand. I have lost 30 pound in the last year. BTW, there is a pill. Won't do it for you, but it helps us of little power of will concerning food quite a bit.

Some will be too thick-headed to follow them. There are people with health insurance who die before they're 65, you know...

In any case, this is a ridiculous point you are making. All of this is about likelihood. Looks lie the concept of "probabilities" eludes you.

Then they will stay in the group with a high risk of dying before 65.... That's all...

Not in our system. Wouldn't be profitable with our healthcare system. Because our system places the profits of Insurance Corporations before fair remuneration . Just like it places it before people's right to life (please don't start yapping about "opportunity" here. That is obviously implicit.)

Yes... they are fired for the greater good of the community that enslaves them. They will be assimilated... resistance is futile...

Of course not!!!! What kind of question is that?

Right. Ever hear of EHR (or EMR)? It's part of Obamacare. But they also can't be forced to grant access to their EHR. It just makes it easier. But stupid people will have a greater probability of dying younger than their smarter counterparts, that's for sure. We know that that's a fact since... even before Darwin. But the smarter ones won't need to take sick time off, they'll have a greater chance of reaching 65, and their genes (and memes) will have a slightly greater chance of being present in the following generation.

Sure. It also leaves the problem of those who refuse to live and commit suicide. And, don't get me wrong, those are problems. But the silver limning is that they probably won't harm humanity's gene pool.

I can see you learning so many things you didn't know about Universal Healthcare. I bet that if you weren't just a partissan fanatic, and you were actually debating to learn (like I do), you would be cheering for a single-payer system at this point.

 

Since this "doctor" you mention is not here, I can't debate with them or ask them questions. But the conclusion I am referring to is (I'm quoting your post) "This isn't because of nationalized medicine for the elderly." That (regardless of who the author is) is not supported by the article. I'm not disputing the stated fact (i.e. their longevity is the same), I'm talking about the "because of" part. Especially (but not exclusively) due to the fact that after 65, they are in a single-payer system.

.
The "low cost" part wouldn't change (other than maybe getting lower) "Usually" will change to "always". And "forcing"... you can pay a doctor with a Private practice if you want.

I can't predict the future, but in all countries with a universal healthcare system it has. I see no reason, and you have not provided any, to think it would be different here.

Looks like I may be more "libertarian" than you. I don't believe in forcing stupid people to do what they don't want to. So long as it doesn't affect other people's rights. But I prefer that it's the person's decision if they want to live longer or not, rather than how much money they make. There are smart people who don't have money, just like the stupid people you mention who do.

In what you mention, my problem is neither of those. To me it's the "huge" part that counts. That needs to be changed to "all"

Sure. That's why the DoI says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 90% of men are created equal..."

BTW: That 10% statistic is pure B.S. Completely worthless.

Read again. It says that I don't know what "outcomes" has to do with anything except ... [followed by something so obvious that it's probably not what you meant and it's not even worth repeating here]

Well, when I was at your level of elementary school they called it "grammar". That's 2nd Grade, right?... It can't be 3rd because I just asked an 8 year old. He says he's going to 3rd grade this year, but he knows the meaning and the proper use of the word "except". It's used to separate a group of entities from a "diametrically opposed"... exception.... Now you can impress your teacher by saying something above your grade level.

 

A 95% confidence level at 3% means it can range from about 2.85% to 3.15%. For the uninsured it would be 3.13% to about 3.4%.

As you can easily see that means these intervals overlap. We simply don't know if one is really worse than the other or not. Admittedly they don't overlap much but the *do* overlap!

 

Again show me the words health care in the Constitution. The Constitution list what the Fed government can do, and it is not there.

 

Except in matters where doing so is inherent - voting, fair trials, etc - the Constitution does not grant the power to provide individuals with the means to do anything..

 

They are in a single payer system that only pays for 80% of medical costs. And that will go down to about 60% in a decade. That is *not* universal health care! They are in a single payer system that severely rations access to health care by limiting what they pay for and how much they pay.

Those advocating for single payer *NEVER* want to talk about the decrease in health care that would result!

.

The government simply cannot run anything efficiently. The overhead costs will surpass the overhead costs of the insurance companies within five years. Anyone thinking single payer will wind up being lower cost is being willfully ignorant.

If people won't use the health care system today, even when they have insurance, what makes you think that will change? You have *NOT* provided any reason to think it would change but have just made the claim that it would. What support can you give to support that claim?

Are you kidding? People who won't use the system as they should VIOLATE MY RIGHTS by making me pay higher taxes because they also cause higher costs when they *do* have to access the system!

You don't even understand what libertarianism *is*!

That speaks to equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Why do you *always* fall back on Marxism?

You just absolutely refuse to educate yourself, don't you? You just automatically fall back on the Argument by Dismissal fallacy!

go here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/213665/uninsured-rate-rises.aspx

Gallup puts the estimate at 11.5% but that includes about 5% of adults that are paying IRS penalties rather than buying insurance. My estimate is right on!

You said:

You can run but you can't hide. You are speaking to equal outcomes for all so that everyone is happy. You apparently can't even keep track of your own statements.

"the expected outcome of the pursuit of happiness is .. "happiness". "protecting things that are more likely to produce that outcome"

Again, you can run but you can't hide. Your cognitive dissonance is plain to see.