i have to take a drug test to get a job and send my money to welfare... but the welfare RATS don't have to take a drug test to get my money!!! whats wrong with this picture???
Posted on 07/14/2007 7:23:38 AM PDT by TazforPrez
Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan at the Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa, California, on December 11, 1993
LZ: In today's proposals for sweeping changes in the field of medicine, the term "socialized medicine" is never used. Instead we hear demands for "universal," "mandatory," "single-payer," and/or "comprehensive" systems. These demands aim to force one healthcare plan (sometimes with options) onto all Americans; it is a plan under which all medical services are paid for, and thus controlled, by government agencies. Sometimes, proponents call this "nationalized financing" or "nationalized health insurance." In a more honest day, it was called socialized medicine.
LP: Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at aynrand.org ...
If you think health care is a right; that is tantamount to enslaving someone into personal service for you.
Immoral and illegal.
Wanna bet members of Congress will have an alternative plan while the rest of us “little people” live under the socialized plan they concoct?
If you think health care is a right; that is tantamount to enslaving someone into personal service for you.Of course you are correct, as is the Ayn Rand Institute, but I don't think that this phrasing of the argument is a winning strategy for our side.
The fact is, we already have universal health care of sorts in this country, in hospital emergency rooms, and that's probably not going to go away.
A better way to win this argument, in my opinion, is to avoid the whole question of "the right to universal health care" and keep the argument on practical grounds.
Point to a country that has better health care than the USA. The answer is: none.
Emphasize the need to get the government more out of the picture, not more into it, by making health care and health insurance more a free-market activity and less of a socialized one.
In other words, don't emphasize right and wrong so much (which will just inflame the yahoos) but calmly try to get everyone to pay attention to results:
The country with the highest degree of free-market in its health care system is also the country with the best health care system. Those countries that are most socialized have the longest lines, the least options, and the worst doctors.
Let me start by saying that I do not think socialized medicine is the answer. That being said, the system is broken and is mostly because of the medical insurance industry and government. Many issues would go away if individuals/small businesses were allowed to pool together and qualify for large group plans. But wait, insurance companies make and save too much money on individual plans. My cousin and her husband own a small business in Las Vegas and he has non-hodgkins lymphoma. As a result of his illness, the insurance company increases his premiums around 25% every year. They can’t legally cancel him, but they can legally price him out of coverage. The government has created a lot of these problems, and there is a lot they could do to fix those problems without socialized healthcare.
Of course there was no mention of the fact that these were the terms she agreed to when she purchased the insurance policy.
I'm not necessarily bothered by the prospect of some socialization of the health insurance industry, but there people are ABSOLUTE LOONS if they consider $18,000/day an acceptable price to sustain a cancer-wracked body.
(And no, I'm no Larry King fan)
“The health care issue is so troublesome because most Americans are incapable of thinking. They just emote and free health care feels good to them. Then they rationalize their pre-determined emotional opinion and call that thinking.”
Bullseye! I have an older friend who is exactly like that. But then when I tell her “OK... you want government medicine? Fine! Just be prepared for a smaller paycheck.” As soon as I mention the paycheck reduction that will be required for gov’t medicine she starts back pedaling... she hadn’t thought about that.
It is several things not the least of which is malpractice lawyers like John Edwards. People who want Socialized medicine should have to live under it for a year before committing our country to the plan. Waiting 2 years to have your gall bladder out (non emergency surgery); spending the night in the hallway after having your first child (no beds available); no choice at all in your care. I wish someone would ask how much it will actually cost each taxpayer to institute National Health. When I worked in Britain 20 years ago my tax bite was 50% and I was in the lowest tax bracket. Yes, we need to figure out something but you just have to look at Medicare and Medicaid to see how the government runs healthcare.
Those countries that are most socialized have the longest lines, the least options, and the worst doctors.
France #1 on UN list:
How does France do it? All Health Care Providers are government employees!
“However, French doctors don’t have to pay back their crushing student loans because medical school is paid for by the state, and malpractice insurance premiums are a tiny fraction of the $55,000* a year and up that many U.S. doctors pay.
That $55,000 equals the average yearly net income for French doctors, a third of what their American counterparts earn.
Then again, the French government pays two-thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians—a tax that’s typically 40% of income.”
People who support Universal Health Care are stuck on stupid. Everyone knows you cain’t fix stupid.
*(Repeating a real life experience...My daughters OB/GYN quit delivering babies when his premium jumped to $165,000 per year from $105,000 and he has to carry it for 18 years after he delivered his last baby!!)
The National Association of the Self-Employed is affiliated with an insurance company called MegaLife, I believe. It is a group insurance thing where individuals and micro-corps can get insurance for themselves or employees, respectively. It is not that expensive. I've had it for several years and I wonder at the people who say things like "I'm spending one thousand dollars a month on insurance".
Yes, and not choosing which medical school you attend or which specialty you choose. Not to mention that these countries finances are collapsing under the weight of their health care plans.
It is indeed a right. Not a Constitutional right, not a Civil Right, but a Human Right. Eleanor Roosevelt’s Declaration says so.
What the domestic-enemy media never tell you is that 47 million number is made up of large number of young, single men who see no reason for insurance; millionaires who have enough cash on hand to make insurance unnecessary; many, many illegal aliens; other people who prefer to go to the “free” clinics or emergency room; and others who CHOOSE to not have insurance.
i have to take a drug test to get a job and send my money to welfare... but the welfare RATS don't have to take a drug test to get my money!!! whats wrong with this picture???
We are already well on our way towards universal health care, i.e., socialized medicine. Everyone over 65 is in Medicare. And then there are the millions more who receive services under Medicaid including children who are not otherwise covered. We are irreversibly going incrementally into universal health care. It is just a matter of time.
The latest wrinkle is that US corporations are now touting the idea of single payer health care and delinking it from employment using the rationale that it makes US business more competitive globally because health care is provided by the government in other countries competing with us. With almost 50 million uninsured in this country, those advovcating universal health care will have a lot of political support.
With almost 50 million uninsured in this country, those advovcating universal health care will have a lot of political support.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote for themselves largess from the public treasury with a result that a democracy always fails under loose fiscal policy and is generally followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence — from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, selfishness to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependency and dependency back again to bondage.”
They aren't allowed to? (honestly asking)
IMHO a big root of our problems is the historical accident we're stuck with of linking employment to health insurance. This makes no sense. Yes everyone needs health insurance but why do we have a system that virtually forces everyone to get it through their employer, of all things? Everyone needs food but that doesn't mean we incentivize employers to provide "food plans".
Eliminate the tax incentive for employers to compensate employees via buying insurance policies in bulk. That's a huge distortion of free-market forces. I think I'm making essentially the flip side of your argument; instead of encouraging more entities to buy insurance in bulk/large groups, I'd like to remove the artificial encouragement for anyone to do so.
If you want to turn the Hollywood-entertainment crowd (I include LK in this group) against socialized medicine, just make sure that all cosmetic surgery, holistic spas, etc. are included in the nationalized system, and make sure they have no other options but to go through the system. Tell them they can’t choose their plastic surgeon, or their dentist, and that they may have to wait 2-3 years for their procedures.
LK is very much like most liberals. Hypocritical.
Why is education?
I don’t disagree with you. The problem is that employers get tax benefits along with leverage to keep employees in line, and employees get “better” coverage in a group plan. There are better options out there to be developed, but all sides have alterior motives.
review
Sounds like he died because he had advanced cancer. Who's to say how long, or even whether this chemo would have extended his life?
Of course, that's callous of me. I guess working in the cancer-treatment area has done that to me; I see just how marginal the gains can be of some of these expensive treatments.
Also, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of such a story. Were there no alternatives - cheaper chemo treatments, radiation? - that might have worked 99% as well? what about Medicaid or state programs, could no other way have been found to compensate for the treatment? some hospitals have "ability to pay" provisions that cover patients who can't pay, why not this one? Honestly, doctors work within the system & know about their patients' various options. It strikes me as unlikely that (1) the patient needed the 18k/day treatment and that treatment only, and (2) the insurance policy said "no" flat-out, and (3) no comparable alternative was found or provided.
Doctors want to help their patients, in my experience. Also, they don't like to get sued.
Of course there was no mention of the fact that these were the terms she agreed to when she purchased the insurance policy.
Well let's be fair about one point, she (most likely) didn't know exactly that the terms of whatever insurance policy she/they purchased (through her or his employer, most likely) would end up, in practice, being the rule: "we won't pay for such and such chemo". No mortal human could possibly wade through the entirety of the rules and regulations of the insurance that they sign and map out all the possible ramifications such as "if my husband gets cancer and the doctor wants to put him on MegaChemo which is $18k/day, it won't pay".
When people are purchasing a product, there's a certain reasonable expectation of what that product will and won't do. If you purchase a car, you expect it to "just work", you don't expect to have to wade through a legal document describing the timing mechanism of the spark plugs. You don't expect to take possession of the car, have it not work, and have the dealer come up to you and say "sorry, you knew you were buying a car whose spark-plug timing is completely wrong and cannot be set correctly. Check the contract." No.
When one buys insurance, I'd think any reasonable person would expect "I get sick from cancer and need treatment" to be among the things it covers. An "insurance" policy that doesn't cover cancer treatment is hardly worth the name "insurance". (But again, I suspect there's more to the story)
there people are ABSOLUTE LOONS if they consider $18,000/day an acceptable price to sustain a cancer-wracked body.
The problem is that market forces do not apply very well in health care. It's not as if people faced with that $18k/day bill can or will "shop around" and drive the price down. Nobody would say "gee that's a little steep, I think I'll die sooner instead" (even if that's what will have to happen in practice). Your Doctor says you "need" such-and-such chemo (which is often dubious), you believe him. He's a Doctor!
And if you don't get it paid for somehow, you go on Larry King and complain.
There's no true free market in health care, and such a thing is a bit unreasonable to expect.
Part of the way socialist countries can keep down health care costs is to really put a clampdown on whether and how much doctors can be sued for malpractice. People want that here, they're going to have to give up suing their doctors for $20 million pain-and-suffering. I wonder how many Americans would be willing to give up their precious lawsuits for the dream of "universal" health care?
Right. I'm saying we need to remove those tax benefits.
It's already going away, bit by bit, as that phony "right" bankrupts hospitals, and they close, one by one.
Right now, most hospitals can hide the cost of that service by padding other bills, but that practice is under attack and won't survive another ten years. Obviously, emergency care can't be given away indefinitely without some system of payment.
The question is not whether health care is a “right,” but whether it is an essential part of an industrialized country.
The second part of the question is whether conservatives will stick to their guns on this issue and alienate a significant portion of the population, including small business people, large corporations, and those without insurance.
And much of the support is coming from those who want to shed the costs of health care, and profit from the shift to the taxpayer, likely without considering an adjustment to individual compensation.
Epidemic or pandemic diseases. TB is the most currently discussed example. The community as a whole and its members as individuals have vested interests in treating those with TB and in even enforcing their treatment out of pure individual self defense.
Secondly, Christian values are, of course, ignored by Rand. At least the community of Christians has some moral obligation to care for the poor. While this does not rise to the level of conferring an individual right, it is a fact the America is founded on Christian values. I would rather not live in a country where you step over the bodies of the dying in order to get to the hospitals. I have seen enough of that in socialist countries.
It can be argued that our health-care system is already in such a mess that all but the very rich are denied access to effective medical care. The efforts of Lawyers, the health-care industries themselves and con artists in our midst and manipulating existing law harm each and every one of us.
My daughters OB/GYN quit delivering babies when his premium jumped to $165,000 per year from $105,000 and he has to carry it for 18 years after he delivered his last baby!Incredible.
How many Americcans die every year because they can’t afford health care this country is so well known for? The non-productive class doesn’t because the government takes care of it. The rich don’t because they can afford it. That leaves the working middle class....
Just some thoughts.
I wonder how many Americans would be willing to give up their precious lawsuits for the dream of "universal" health care?Good question.
They already do. Its a free check in at Walter Reed.
I agree with the first part of your statement (whether health care is a "right" really is somewhat of a sideshow; of course, it's important to address because there are people who do claim it's a "right"). However, the second half of your statement is meaningless.
Of course health care is "part of" an industrialized economy. (So are taxi cabs.) But that doesn't resolve anything because it doesn't tell us how to deliver (and ration) health care. Socialists ration health care primarily by waiting times and monopoly decision-making from the top about which treatments to provide. Free market purists would ration health care by price alone. What the U.S. has currently is some weird hybrid. But certainly health care is "part of" our economy just as it is "part of" the economy of every other country - and indeed, every other human society that has ever existed. It's just that that doesn't tell us anything.
The second part of the question is whether conservatives will stick to their guns on this issue and alienate a significant portion of the population, including small business people, large corporations, and those without insurance.
You seem to be assuming that there is no way, consistent with conservative principles, to make these groups happy on the subject of health care.
I disagree.
"small business people" and "large corporations" only have to care about "health care" in the first place, to the extent that they're involved in the health care industry by virtue of the tax advantage for health insurance, and various regulations that have flowed from this. Tax away the tax advantage, and de-link employment from health insurance, and business would lose its reason to be interested in health care one way or other.
As for those without health insurance, they are covered by universal health care already - it's called the emergency room.
It can be "argued" this, but not effectively or accurately.
I work in a county hospital. It delivers effective medical care every day, to people with virtually no money or who are required to make only token copayments. So what are you talking about?
I don't know. Not very many, I'd guess. What's your guess, and based on what?
My thoughts on health care are complicated. I am catagorized as “100% disabled” in the view of the VA (not in my view). What I have seen is mind-boggling. I have seen the local VA hospital struggle with its budget constantly. On the other hand, during a recent visit to a bigger “flagship” hospital in CA for a physical & tests it was completely the opposite. I was offered things I did need, a new wheelchair, pricey cushions, equipment for the home, etc. that I neither needed, wanted, or would take. I literally had to argue with them to make them understand that.
I feel that any socialized healthcare system would be run in the same inept way.
Yep, the same way the corporations have the taxpayer shoulder the social and medical costs for the illegal aliens.
Health Care is not a right...
unless you are an illegal alien!!!!
muchas gracias jorge bush!!!
Employers have a real interest in health care. The health of their employees is directly linked to productivity.
Delivering emergency room health care is far more expensive than standard doctor visits. Plus, once someone is so sick as to require ER attention, the illness itself is more costly to treat than if they had gone to a doctor’s office early on.
If conservatives stick to this “No free healthcare” line, they will lose a ton of votes. And what will surprise them is they’ll be losing votes in red states with large rural populations who have their own healthcare crisis now with aging populations and not enough doctors.
I agree this is a slap in the face of most that will do nothing but make them scream louder.However I will not give up the hope that people will wake up to the fact that the government is using guns to rob us of our worth,to give to someone who has less worth.
And it’s even worse than what you say. The government is using guns to rob us to pay for health care for people who are streaming over our borders, unopposed by our government and all its guns. Our government has its guns pointed exactly in the wrong direction.
Third party payers. Look to the late 60’s for the roots to our current situation. Bad idea that has evolved into a massive Frankenstein.
Well, true. Similarly, employees having a nice place to live in a convenient nearby location is directly linked to productivity. But this doesn't spur (most) employers to set up "housing plans" for their employees. Instead they give their employees this stuff called "money" which employees can use to arrange for the housing of their choice. (Money can be exchanged for goods and services.) Employers know that they must give their employees enough of this "money" that the employees can find satisfactory housing (at least compared to other options the prospective employee might have), else they won't be able to hire anyone. This is an upward pressure on something called "salaries".
The same could all be true of health care, and would be, were it not for the (completely artificial) situation we have where the government makes employers' dollars go farther if they give employees part of their salaries in the form of a "health insurance plan" instead of in the form of "money". Thus, my proposal is that we stop doing that.
Delivering emergency room health care is far more expensive than standard doctor visits. Plus, once someone is so sick as to require ER attention, the illness itself is more costly to treat than if they had gone to a doctor’s office early on
True. Not relevant to anything I said.
If conservatives stick to this “No free healthcare” line, they will lose a ton of votes.
"No free healthcare" is not a "line". It's part of the fabric of reality. There is no such thing as "free healthcare" here, nor in any other human society, past present or future.
Once you unlink job and healthcare, then you raise the cost to employees, which in turn demands higher wages. This is largely because individual plans are more expensive than group plans. This could be solved by a union providing healthcare via a group plan, but that opens a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Note — America is the last industrialized nation not to offer some form of universal healthcare.
Whether this effect is significant is debatable. Whether it would even be true at all in any meaningful sense in a world in which employers weren't incentivized to buy their employees' health insurance for them - and thus, individuals buying their own health insurance was the norm - is extremely doubtful.
I certainly don't understand why "but I want the 10% discount that comes from being part of a group" (or whatever the discount actually is) is supposed to be a rock-solid argument for keeping our bizarre system of incentives in which people are dependent on their employers to choose their health insurance company. But even if that discount is (bizarrely) considered to be a deal-breaker around which all other considerations must bend, as others have mentioned there is always the option of private individuals forming groups for the purpose of buying insurance anyway. Such associations already exist right now.
Note — America is the last industrialized nation not to offer some form of universal healthcare.
No it isn't. America has universal health care. Leave your ID at home and go get in a car accident that renders you unconscious. You will be brought by strangers to a hospital and you will be given health care services by highly educated people, without them even knowing you who are, or whether/how much/how you will pay them back. This is broadly true for a variety of ailments. It is also true whoever you are.
That's universal health care. It's a guarantee by societal edict that you will be provided needed health care, and it's universal. It may not have a fancy name like UniversoAmeriPlan and left-wingers may not be able to receive the endorphin rush of walking around and telling themselves "finally we have universal health care like Sweden and Cuba!" but it's universal health care nonetheless.
The question is not whether we have universal health care (we do) but how the health care that health care workers/organizations give to those who need it is to be rationed. Admittedly, we do ration health care by a variety of means. Like, I'll bet you are going to say "but the ER is only for emergencies, and you have to wait, and it doesn't cover such-and-such" - well yes, that is one of the many ways we ration health care.
But note: Every single country in the world rations their health care, no matter how "universal" they advertise their "system" as being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.