how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda Your video focuses on how universal healthcare will replace privately-purchased healthcare, ultimately making it illegal to purchase goods and services on the "open market."
However, our current (and heavily socialized) healthcare system (depicted as a "market") made it illegal for millions of Americans to purchase the healthcare goods and services they would have chosen absent laws setting quality standards higher than a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce.
It seems like no difference. We're just saying that if compulsion is good enough for some Americans, it's good enough for all!
Mark | |
|   KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda The only sure thing is doing nothing will take everyone down and out. | |
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by amigo_boy:However, our current (and heavily socialized) healthcare system (depicted as a "market") made it illegal for millions of Americans to purchase the healthcare goods and services they would have chosen absent laws setting quality standards higher than a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce. You keep claiming this but you, nor anyone else who argues for nationalization of the health care system, has shown how people who cannot afford insurance are systematically being denied health care. I would think the 47 trillion (or whatever the BS number is today) people who lack insurance would have died off by now since they lack insurance.
If you think that our system, which currently enables people of lesser means to get high quality care which they cannot afford to buy, is so bad, would you argue for replacing it with a system that allows for medical professionals to receive less training, and offer such subpar services to people simply because they cannot afford to pay?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by pnh102:You keep claiming this but you, nor anyone else who argues for nationalization of the health care system, has shown how people who cannot afford insurance are systematically being denied health care. We all know you don't get something for nothing. There was a reason for criminalizing lessor (yet world class) standards in the interest of producing "the best healthcare in the world." Why? Because a significant number of people were willing to buy and sell those lessor goods and services.
You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Those who can afford the resulting socialized market (with standards set higher by public law than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually) pay more. That's money they could have used for something else.
The further down the wealth scale you go, it's logical that individuals will make choices to buy food, clothing and housing before the above-described inflated healthcare.
If you want to say that the above doesn't "deny" anyone anything, then we can also say that Republican scare-tactics that individuals will be delayed care (under universal healthcare) won't deny them anything either.
Mark | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by amigo_boy:You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Again. Show me where top quality health care is being denied to people of lesser means on a regular basis.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Again. Show me where top quality health care is being denied to people of lesser means on a regular basis. It's not. In the same way nobody will be delayed care when today's socialized system is universalized.
Right?
Mark | |
| | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by amigo_boy:It's not. In the same way nobody will be delayed care when today's socialized system is universalized. Well if there is no problem, then why change something that clearly works for most people?
Tell you what, when most Americans start going abroad on a regular basis for medical treatment because they cannot get treatment in the USA, then we can say, yes something needs to be done.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by pnh102:Well if there is no problem, then why change something that clearly works for most people? You mixed your metaphors. There can be a problem due to something working for most people, right? Those two conditions aren't mutually exclusive, are they?
If that's true, then we'd have to talk about things such as the seriousness of the problem (even though they're a minority), and whether the majority have the right to create that problem for that minority.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda Again.
Please show me any proof that people of lesser means, the ones who cannot afford health care at our prices, are NOT receiving health care and are suffering and dying as a result. Until you, or anyone else, does this, then I am simply not convinced that the current proposal to nationalize health care is needed. That means the current system, while imperfect, does manage to work reasonably well.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by pnh102:Please show me any proof that people of lesser means, the ones who cannot afford health care at our prices, are NOT receiving health care and are suffering and dying as a result. See the documentary which I've posted three times now.
Are you saying those people received adequate healthcare?
The woman waited for diagnostic treatment due to the cost of our artificial "market."
The fat guy skimped on medication to cut costs (for the same reason).
The hispanic guy got treatment only because of the visibility he received as part of the documentary.
Again, how can a "market" be interferred with (to improve market outcomes) without it negatively affecting someone somehow? (higher prices, etc.).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda And again, these are isolated incidents. If I wanted, I could henpeck through the systems of Canada, the UK, Cuba, and any other country which has nationalized health care and find examples of spectacular failures. I could, if I wanted, go through many examples in the USA of people of lesser means getting top quality health care that they could not pay for on their own.
So you fail to provide any proof that there is widespread failure in our present system.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by pnh102:And again, these are isolated incidents. If I wanted, I could henpeck through the systems of Canada, the UK, Cuba, and any other country which has nationalized health care and find examples of spectacular failures. Good. We've established that you're ok with coercion (using Public Law to alter a market, eliminating the ability of the individual to purchase what they can afford).
And, we've established that you're ok with this to the tune of 38-48 million individuals.
Therefore, you shouldn't have a principle-based problem with renegotiating which people are coerced, or the spreading of lessor coercion across more. For example, delaying hip replacements a few months instead of life-saving procedures (and the diagnostic tests discovering their need.).
said by pnh102:So you fail to provide any proof that there is widespread failure in our present system. You haven't defined "widespread" or "failure." In previous debates you've said ER healthcare is good enough. A position that I doubt is very widely held.
So, the only difference today is that we've established your principles, and their inapplicability to reform. 
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by amigo_boy:Good. We've established that you're ok with coercion (using Public Law to alter a market, eliminating the ability of the individual to purchase what they can afford). Why is this wrong? Do you believe that people should be getting substandard health care? Do you think they should die simply because you think these "arbitrary medical standards" are too high for your liking?
It is well-established that absent these standards, people do die. Your ignoring of early 20th century practices of quackery and patent medicines doesn't change this fact.
said by amigo_boy:And, we've established that you're ok with this to the tune of 38-48 million individuals. Again, you have consistently failed to prove that all these people are not receiving top quality health care. A lot of people would notice if tens of millions of people were dying on the streets because of a lack of care.
Until you can prove that everyone who lacks insurance is not getting health care, then you have no basis to claim that reform that supposedly addresses this is even needed.
said by amigo_boy:You haven't defined "widespread" or "failure." In previous debates you've said ER healthcare is good enough. A position that I doubt is very widely held. Yes I have. I have asked you to prove that these tens of millions of people you repeatedly cite are indeed not getting health care. You have always and consistently failed to do this. A few outlier examples doesn't make a case for anything.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by pnh102:If you think that our system, which currently enables people of lesser means to get high quality care which they cannot afford to buy, is so bad, would you argue for replacing it with a system that allows for medical professionals to receive less training, and offer such subpar services to people simply because they cannot afford to pay? Sorry I didn't reply to that paragraph. I'll do so here instead of editing my previous reply.
I'd be open to that. However, I would word it slightly differently: "because that's all they can afford to pay."
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
Mark | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by amigo_boy:The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world."). Start watching at 6:00 mark!!!
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2pi0vquBA
Start watching at 6:00 mark!!!
So you suggest free market anarchy? lol
Edit, wrong video link was posted, now corrected, note all the "free market" running the subdivision around at 6:00 mark | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda said by patcat88:So you suggest free market anarchy? lol I think we could have (for example) competing medical associations, accrediting teaching facilities, licensing doctors, etc. to different standards.
I don't believe such an environment (or a doctor with two months less education than 8 years) leads to a parade of horribles.
But, the real point is that if we, as a society, choose to impose high standards "for the good of all," (which implies eliminating lessor goods and services which would benefit those who could afford only that) we have a responsibility to ensure the resulting socialized market benefits all of society.
The problem we have today is that we (as a society, for collective goals) set medical standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate. Then we pretend that what we have is just a "market." And those who can't afford the "market" are just looking for a "handout." "Socialism I tell you! Socialism!"
We can't have it both ways. If we don't really want a "market," then we shouldn't justify social inequality using market rhetoric.
What do you think?
Mark | |
|
| |
|
