Death Panels for All! The health care thread

[Jim North]

The USA should definitely adopt socialist medicine. That way we in Canada won't lose so many doctors who can make more money down there, and you won't have the same problem because where are your doctors gonna go?

This is brilliant. You are brilliant.

Despite what my signature says, I'm not mocking this time.

[Kevin R Brown]

Before you say "NO!" remember, social security is INSOLVENT. It cannot pay for itself, it is hemmoraging money at an unheard of pace and there is really no way to fix it at this point. Reducing payments would at least help preserve social security for a longer timeframe.

...I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.

You're aware that money is just, well, money, right? 'Hemmoraging'? 'Bleeding'? Those are things that people do, typically after they've been kicked into the street over someone's paranoia about the influx & volume of their accumulated treasure.


Yeesh. We look out over a tract of space including 8 planets and dozens of moons, see that life exists on only one itty bitty rock among them, and then decide that money is what's valuable.

*Shakes head*

[Kevin R Brown]

If we look outside the US, there's been some pretty spectacular shows of Socialism imploding, crashing, and then exploding. The biggest of these was, of course, the USSR

The Soviet Union certainly was not 'socialist' unless you care to really stretch the definition of the term. It was, for th longest time, a totalitarian police state.

Irregardless, that is not what caused it's financial collapse. The Cold War caused it's collapse - and if you recall, nearly the same thing happened in the United States. It was expensive to run constant surveillance, engage in a never-ending arms race and play out proxy wars. The Soviets simply had higher costs because they also ran internal surveillance programs and spread the arm of the KGB much further than the United States reached with the CIC.

There were a myriad of other problems, of course, and all of these spiraled into a perfect storm of sorts that would blow down the iron curtain.

Saying that socialism imploded and thus caused the downfall of the Soviet Union is like saying that socialism is what caused Maoist China to run into horrific famine and poverty, ignoring the insanities that went on inside either country (the sanction in China, for example, that called for everyone to run outside clanging metal kitchenware in order to scare off the birds - a practice that was so rigorously pursued that the birds began to die of stress and exhaustion, freeing plagues of insects to savage crops and serve as vectors for disease).

[Alias Pseudonym]

Before you say "NO!" remember, social security is INSOLVENT. It cannot pay for itself, it is hemmoraging money at an unheard of pace and there is really no way to fix it at this point. Reducing payments would at least help preserve social security for a longer timeframe.

...I don't understand this line of reasoning at all.

You're aware that money is just, well, money, right? 'Hemmoraging'? 'Bleeding'? Those are things that people do, typically after they've been kicked into the street over someone's paranoia about the influx & volume of their accumulated treasure.


Yeesh. We look out over a tract of space including 8 planets and dozens of moons, see that life exists on only one itty bitty rock among them, and then decide that money is what's valuable.

*Shakes head*

*smack*

Stop mixing sci-fi perspective and economics. Jupiter is nice but it will not pay for your groceries.

[Kevin R Brown]

Ow.


I know that. I'm just saying that when the numbers on your monthly bank statement become more important to you than the well being of other people, we have ourselves a problem.

[Phact0rri]

Yes, there are very publicized cases of people being dropped off in neighborhoods from hospitals and left to wander. Those are the rare exceptions. Hospital staff aren't there because they make the "big bucks" - they chose their careers, almost overwhelmingly, because they care.

Here, there have been cases where they have have dropped people who can't pay to smaller clinics, and 'poor neighbourhood' hospitals from the ones in beverly hills/west hollywood/etc. i'm not sure if thats what you are talking about. not sure if I've heard about people being dropped off to the curb somewhere.

[Laemkral]

As one of the few people on here to have medical coverage, and as someone who has ALWAYS had medical coverage (mom was a nurse with a major HMO, Kaiser Permanente), I am all for universal healthcare. I understand how damn important it is to be taken care of, and the expenses of maintaining and running such a system will be far outpaced by the results. Monetary and not.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As has been pointed out, most hospitals are required to save your life, regardless of if you can pay or not. What happens when you can't pay? Quite often the emergency room bill gets picked up by Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. Congrats, if you'd just shelled out earlier for healthcare, then little Timmy's couch would not have turned into a severe bronchial infection requiring prescriptions drugs and hospitalization. The costs saved would be vast, as I've been informed by medical professionals.

America needs to suck it up and learn that not everything can be done RIGHT THIS GOD DAMN MOMENT!!!! Simmer down, stand in line, and learn patience. It takes a month for socialized medicine to do something? Then it takes a month because that's how triage works. If your arm was severed and squirting blood, they'd get right on it. If you need braces.... you're not exactly a fucking priority. I'm sure there's the occasional horror story from Canada of waiting "forever" for something that was kinda critical, but how much worse are our insurance companies? You can get Viagra, but they want to say your cancer is a preexisting condition because you have a family history???? That's ever so slightly A THOUSAND TIMES MORE FUCKED UP.

America is too damn stressed out. Seriously. Not worrying about my health care is a HUGE load off my back. I need new glasses? I get new glasses. I break my arm? They fix it. I'm hospitalized? I get taken care of. Seriously, huge worry I don't have. Now, you're all worried ILLEGAL ALIENS are going to capitalize upon this? It's a system, there will be flaws, and both illegal immigrants and legal residents/citizens will find ways to exploit it. That's the nature of systems. Go wiki Computers and Hackers, now.

Social Security needs a damn reboot. That's a whole other issue, and its modern medicine's fault (irony, yes?) since people are living a shit ton longer to collect those checks. These people aren't supposed to keep living, they're supposed to be dead by 75! Now we're reaching 100 like it was nothing! With healthcare not being a concern, readjust the system. But even better, dismantle the damn thing and come up with something better. Do that after you fix healthcare.

A lot of wonderful points were discussed regarding Socialism. I have nothing to add.

All in all, I have government healthcare. I think its great. I've had people complain about the efficiency of government run anything, and I have to disagree. When you fund it properly, things can go right. You can either have it done cheap, or done well. If you don't believe me then look at every single government arms contract for the past....however long you want to look back. Way too often, it goes to the lowest bidder who's really just undercutting their price and the cost skyrockets later. A little more upfront could have saved a lot in the long run. Also, anyone wants to bitch about the USPS, I get free letter mail while I'm deployed, free APO to APO shipping ALWAYS, and they deliver from the US to a warzone on the other side of the world in 10-15 days. That my friends, is fucking service.

[Phact0rri]

Ow.


I know that. I'm just saying that when the numbers on your monthly bank statement become more important to you than the well being of other people, we have ourselves a problem.

well said-- however the internal problem is that mankind is greedy. our entire civilization is pretty much proof positive of that. I mean look at the world pretty much choking, and companies are saying "well it costs to much to reduce pollution so who cares if we all die... we'll be rich doing it!" And its not just the big corps that are that way. i mean without thinking people would rather live comfortably than they would to have a small bit of thought into day to day. Fast food is bad for you as everyone knows but its way more convenient that cooking something at home that is actually good for you. people know obesitys a problem.. but actually exercise? uhh... yeah right.

In a perfect world everyone would care for their fellows, instead of just saying they do, til it comes in conflict with what they "WANT". In the states many times wants and needs are essentially the same thing. I mean live without an ipod? I mean for serious? if it was between having a bad ass new car or helping your friends and family pay for healthcare... most people would pick the former.

And that is essentially why healthcare is a big deal. people think they are paying everyone else's bills. and in order to concrete this opinion they are starting to spread rumours about how it really is supposed to be working. truth is the bill has nothing on Death panels. It mentions a bit about legalization of how living wills work, and people indicating how long they want to remain on life support before the chord is pulled.

[Jim North]

Yeesh. We look out over a tract of space including 8 planets and dozens of moons, see that life exists on only one itty bitty rock among them, and then decide that money is what's valuable.

It's not the money, but what the money represents. In this case, the ability to actually do the things we're wanting to do to help people. If you want to help people by setting up universal health care, then you're going to need the money to do it. Scoffing at people for trying to figure out where to get that money is totally missing the point at best and actually counterproductive at worst.

The Soviet Union certainly was not 'socialist' unless you care to really stretch the definition of the term. It was, for th longest time, a totalitarian police state.

Socialism is an economic system in which the government or other ruling body funds and runs many if not all of the means of production in order to distribute that production and its end products evenly amongst the population.

A totalitarian police state is a political system in which the government is run by a single individual or a handful of people in an oppressive regime with complete power over its citizenry through threats and application of brute force.

They are not in the same class, nor or they mutually exclusive. They have, in fact, existed in the same place at the same time before . . . for example, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, more commonly known as the USSR.

Irregardless, that is not what caused it's financial collapse. The Cold War caused it's collapse - and if you recall, nearly the same thing happened in the United States. It was expensive to run constant surveillance, engage in a never-ending arms race and play out proxy wars.

I did not say that Socialism was the only or even a direct cause of their collapse, simply that they were a Socialist state that did so. Further, as I myself said in that post:

Of course there were other mitigating factors involved there than just "Socialism doesn't work!", but it's still not a very good sign.

And it's not a good sign. While Socialism can be a perfectly good system, it can only be done so if handled properly, and my point is that there are more than a few examples of it not being handled properly. Using it to fund a huge military for a war that might never happen while people are standing in extremely long lines for a roll of toilet paper? Not handling it properly. People have a legitimate concern that the amount of money to be put into a universal health care center may end up with us being very healthy as we stand in an extremely long line for our roll of toilet paper. People are justifiably afraid that putting in such a large amount of money and resources in will be us handling our economic situation as a whole poorly.

[Killbert-Robby]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Hey hey hey, you should have some metric in here for the rest of the world

You'll notice in this thread, nobody said, "RAR! It's Socialism and that's BAD!" Yet, half the thread is about how the socialism arguement is wrong.

You'll also notice that outside of this thread thats at minimum the #2 reason why people don't want universal healthcare, and as such is going to be involved in a debate on the subject?

Where are you getting this from? Is there a poll? I'll retract my statement if there is, but the only people I hear bringing up the socialism arguement with any frequency are the media, making me think it's media-fueled and not actually what people believe.

Good thing nobody in the history of the world has ever based their opinion of important political stances on the media they recieve

[McDuffies]

When you mention other services like police or firemen, the most absurd thing about it that it seems like the choice of medical care developing into corporate institution instead of any other of those, is kind of arbitrary. One thinks, if things were different, you could have had universal health care now, instead of public police. Of course, maybe it has something to do with the fact that wou can earn much more money through medical care, but then again I can think of a few ways how private police could turn money around too.
I mean, sooner or later everyone needs a doctor, health is not a luxury, something that you can skip if you're really short with money, like "I don't think I'll buy Xbox this year" or something. You can't just say "I think I'll put up with these terrible headaches till I pay off my mortgage". That's the reason why people consider proper medical care to be a matter of human rights.

Socialism is an economic system in which the government or other ruling body funds and runs many if not all of the means of production in order to distribute that production and its end products evenly amongst the population.
A totalitarian police state is a political system in which the government is run by a single individual or a handful of people in an oppressive regime with complete power over its citizenry through threats and application of brute force.

They are not in the same class, nor or they mutually exclusive. They have, in fact, existed in the same place at the same time before . . . for example, in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, more commonly known as the USSR.

Even so, USSR was not exactly socialist by anything other than the name, as means were being far from evenly distributed.

Kevin has a point in that all cases of socialism that fell through were attached to some kind of totalitarian state, and there's no reason to think that social elements were more responsible than totalitarian. Specially since there are countries that are doing quite well drawing experience from socialism experience, some of them among the countries with highest standard of living.
Of course you'll say that these countries aren't socialist in their fundamental, marxist form, but I don't think that socialism in it's fundamental form can exist without some sort of totalitarism, because there's bound to be some outsider force to level those more successful with the rest. Hell, communist stare is instated by forcefully taking away money from someone regardless of how he earned it. The whole idea that everyone gets the same no matter how much effort they put into it just has something repressive about it. It's a system that would need enormous amount of social responsibility, more than any nation really has.

I suppose what you are saying is that universal health care should be introduced carefully, with a lot of planing and a sound economical plan. I guess if any country has assets to pull an ambitious project like that, it's USA. I mean, USA government all is too confident when it comes to projects like, I dunno, forcefully instating a democracy into a smaller country, or generally pretending to be the "world police", but when it comes to something like this, there's "it can't be done, it will crash the economy" attitude.

I'm a resident of Canada, so I don't really have a horse in your race (though I do hope that you get your public option. I certainly owe my own life to having public health care)... but, man, the Obama posters with the small moustaches and the cries of 'Heil Hitler! just shock me. I mean, on one hand, I can see why someone who wants to cook-up a fear/hatred-based attack campaign might immediately think of the Adolf comparison because both Hitler and Obama were excellent Orators (though for much different reasons).

I for one saw through Obama's facade of arian white race supremacist from the beginning.
Man, comparing political opponent with hitler has been a staple of every more heated political arguement in last century. I can remember several instances when it was used in our recent history, usually without any arguement to back up comparision. There should be an effective Godwin's law in real life, really.

A bit about socialism - it's a total red herring. It's used by people who want universal healthcare more than those opposed to it! It is a topic that can be easily dismissed as behind the times, as ignorant, as self-serving or as hipocritical. Which of course, it is. You'll notice in this thread, nobody said, "RAR! It's Socialism and that's BAD!" Yet, half the thread is about how the socialism arguement is wrong.

Actually the reason I brought it up here is because I've heard people who are against universal health care using it as arguement very often.

[Jim North]

Kevin has a point in that all cases of socialism that fell through were attached to some kind of totalitarian state, and there's no reason to think that social elements were more responsible than totalitarian.

Of course not. But there isn't any reason to think that the social elements weren't responsible at all, either.

Of course you'll say that these countries aren't socialist in their fundamental, marxist form, but I don't think that socialism in it's fundamental form can exist without some sort of totalitarism, because there's bound to be some outsider force to level those more successful with the rest. Hell, communist stare is instated by forcefully taking away money from someone regardless of how he earned it. The whole idea that everyone gets the same no matter how much effort they put into it just has something repressive about it.

Eeeeeeh. This seems to be a rather common misunderstanding of both Socialism and Communism, one that I myself held onto for a long while. Both systems are not based on "everyone gets exactly the same" but more "everyone gets what they need". Communism in particular is not an ideal designed to take money away from one person and give it to another . . . it's designed to make sure that both people get enough money in the first place and also so that there really isn't anyone to force such a thing. In virtually every form, after all, Communism is supposed to be a classless system in which everyone owns the means of production. There's a good reason why Anarcho-Socialism and Anarcho-Communism are two of the largest Anarchist ideals.

It's a system that would need enormous amount of social responsibility, more than any nation really has.

Oh, I agree, myself. Unfortunately, even more, it would need an enormous amount of resources at its disposal, also possibly more than any nation really has.

I suppose what you are saying is that universal health care should be introduced carefully, with a lot of planing and a sound economical plan. I guess if any country has assets to pull an ambitious project like that, it's USA. I mean, USA government all is too confident when it comes to projects like, I dunno, forcefully instating a democracy into a smaller country, or generally pretending to be the "world police", but when it comes to something like this, there's "it can't be done, it will crash the economy" attitude.

Haha, in short, we seem perfectly happy fucking up other people's countries but not our own? And to a great extent, that's true. Unfortunately one of the contention points is that our assets are a bit tied up now, for quite a few reasons including to some degree our government trying to be Team America (fuuuck yaaaah). I am indeed saying that universal health care should be introduced carefully. Our economy's a little borked as it is right at the moment, so things should proceed a little more carefully than usual, even.

[Killbert-Robby]

Our economy's a little borked as it is right at the moment, so things should proceed a little more carefully than usual, even.

And part of the borkedness is because people are scared to shit of spending money. Surely universal healthcare would take one worry out of people's minds and loosen those purse-strings a little, all for the price of a redistribution of tax money and a decrease in social security like, you know, Medicare. I couldn't agree more with being careful, but I don't think the economy should be the basis of that

[Jim North]

That's quite possible, yes. Or it's possible that people will see the rising taxes and cutting of social security, panic, and want to spend money even less as a result, regardless of the addition of universal health care. Many folks tend to focus on and overreact to the negative rather than the positive, after all. Part of handling the situation carefully should probably include extensive education on how all these effects are tied together and not separate.

[McDuffies]

Eeeeeeh. This seems to be a rather common misunderstanding of both Socialism and Communism, one that I myself held onto for a long while. Both systems are not based on "everyone gets exactly the same" but more "everyone gets what they need".

It's not that big a difference. I mean, for a theoretical sociologist who sits and writes about it it is, but when you try to actually implement it, it's not, "what they need" is just too volatile variable. Anyways the "same" is much easier to explain to wide masses which is why it's so common description, while "need" sounds prettier to academical people.
Either way, individual achievements aren't directly related to one's economical status, which I find unfair. Though I don't think that individual achievements are directly related to one's social status in capitalism either.

[/quote]Communism in particular is not an ideal designed to take money away from one person and give it to another . . . it's designed to make sure that both people get enough money in the first place and also so that there really isn't anyone to force such a thing. In virtually every form, after all, Communism is supposed to be a classless system in which everyone owns the means of production.

I was simplifying things actually. It is based on forcefully taking money away from everyone and making all this money everyone's ownership (which most of people will still see as not being theirs).
It's actually related to that old debate about whether new system should be achieved with revolution or with evolution. My opinion is that economical system, left on it's own without interference), evolves towards forming of classes and not away from them. 'Course, we have examples of liberal socialism implemented peacefully and without revolution, so maybe I'm wrong.

Haha, in short, we seem perfectly happy fucking up other people's countries but not our own?

It's not exactly what I was getting at, it's more a common sence that one earns credibility to solve other people's problems by successfully solving theirs first. And then we have an impression over here that it's being constantly shoved into our faces how great country USA is, and state of medical care over there is one of the most common arguements why it's not so great.

[Killbert-Robby]

That's quite possible, yes. Or it's possible that people will see the rising taxes and cutting of social security, panic, and want to spend money even less as a result, regardless of the addition of universal health care. Many folks tend to focus on and overreact to the negative rather than the positive, after all. Part of handling the situation carefully should probably include extensive education on how all these effects are tied together and not separate.

If we always had to wait for the change-adverse to get used to something before its implemented, we'd never get jack done. I'm not too uber convinced about education of complex economical relationships working amongst people who don't already get it. It seems like trying to force a person into being able to see one of those magic eye pictures. If you can do it, you can do it. Trying to explain to someone else how it works though leads to hours of headaches. If you're so against universal healthcare, I don't think a couple TV spots will suddenly broaden your mind though it'll definitely fuel a lot more LOOK HOW THEY'RE TRYING TO FORCE THIS DOWN OUR THROAT crap.

[Ahaugen]

Coburn is an ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

[RPin]

Coburn is an ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

Having a healthy population is as crucial as educating them and keeping them safe from harm. I don't know why a politician, of all people, can say those kinds of things bold-faced like that. It shouldn't even be open discussion, a government is elected to take care of its people, it can't any simplier. I wasn't even aware that americans didn't have universal health coverage until I watched Sicko. You can thank hospital dramas for that.

[Ti-Phil]

Coburn is an ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

...so it's better to just leave him to die because the governement doesn't bother helping it's citizens? Iiish...

[Killbert-Robby]

Coburn is an ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8

Having a healthy population is as crucial as educating them and keeping them safe from harm. I don't know why a politician, of all people, can say those kinds of things bold-faced like that. It shouldn't even be open discussion, a government is elected to take care of its people, it can't any simplier. I wasn't even aware that americans didn't have universal health coverage until I watched Sicko. You can thank hospital dramas for that.

I found out when Dave had his foot patched up