Yes well, we cannot all help the starving children in africa, and if you consider long-term applications of the philosophy, you'll find that helping yourself can be a help to others. One man who takes the time to build a foundation like the Red Cross can do more than if a thousand of us suddenly rushed off to africa with food and stuff.

The dillema still remains: does this quantify the rich man's life as worth more than the poor man's? It seems like the answer is yes.

Immoral to leave them to die, perhaps, but to ask for compensation? I don't think so. Morality usually implies obligation, that we must save these people, or that we have a duty to. Terminal cancer may be terrible, but I have no obligation to help you if you contract it, when it comes down to it, just like I have no obligation to give you a house if you're homeless or food if you're starving. It's simply an unfortunate side effect of living, when it comes down to it. This is of course, a good reason for healthcare to be covered under social policy, because it would provide the service without all these borderline immoral situations.

The same reason they protest the nationalization of other industries. Competition tends to provide much more innovation, lower costs and increase efficiency. Of course, most people simply hate healthcare because they support the republican party, or because it's "socialist" and don't understand the actual factors in the issue, but like most issues there are pros and cons. In an ideal competitive model, people would recieve higher quality healthcare than in the government model for the same or less price. However, we know that these industries do everything they can to eat up the market and monopolize, which defeats some or all of the benefits of the model (through nasty things like refusing service, dragging out lawsuits, ect). In an ideal government model, everyone recieves the healthcare, especially those who need it, at the cost of some of the effects of competition. However, we know that government = red tape, long lines, ect, which defeats some or all of the benefits of the model. A hybrid would work best. Take the competitive model and introduce the government to ensure fair play, and theoretically we'd have the best of both worlds. Problem is, any group of people is only as good as the individuals within it, whether it be an industry or the government, and we all know who works in our government.... and our coworkers... yeah.

This is another example of the problems in the government model, though it is easily paralleled by industrial corruption. In my opinion, good people = good products, whether the system is socialist or individualist, and unfortunately, like I said, we all know who we work with....

If I were a doctor I'd rather take a slight increase in taxes over the risk of my patients being unable to pay their medical bills, a problem which could threaten my livelihood if it happens frequently.

I think the crux of our disagreement is that you believe that tax is wrong as a concept, while I think it's a necessary contribution for the good of everyone. I am certain that the supporters of the bill are not thinking 'Let's steal money from hard-working citizens!' They will have rather more relevant thoughts on their minds, such as 'If I lose my job I may not be able to pay my medical bills'. Remember that these people likely pay taxes as well, just not as much.

You say that the system will be abused. Yes - it will be abused by unscrupulous people just like any other system. However, to say that this warrants blocking its introduction altogether is not a strong argument. You implement a system, and then you stamp out the abuses as time goes on. It's the way anything new works (take the US constitution for example), and to say it's not worthwhile introducing it because there will be some initial abuse is short-sighted.

I see your point. Perhaps it is not immoral to ask for compensation, but what if they are unable to give that compensation? This causes problems for the system.


A hybrid system is essentially what the healthcare bill proposes, isn't it? The UK has a hybrid system and it works pretty well - those with the ability to pay large amounts of money are able to pay for treatment at private hospitals and doctors if they so choose. Generally speaking this means shorter waiting times for operations and consultations. I think most people agree that, although using the National Health Service is slower than going private, the trade-off is worth it. I agree with you about the lower efficiency of state-run industries, but as you rightly point out, private companies also monopolise in the health industry.

There are some services which should never be privatised, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY

The only problem I have with it is this fine you pay if you choose not to take the socialized plan or seek out a private plan. That isn't right. To me, healthcare is important and I will do everything in my power to obtain a plan as soon as I need one - I'm in college and on my parents plan until I graduate. And I don't really want to hear "what if there are no options..." because I know there are. *KNOW* there are. My boyfriend doesn't feel the same way. However, he admits open and freely that he would rather spend money tuning his car than spend money on health insurance.

This thread reminds me. I had a friend who is diabetic and would complain about how expensive her medicine was, and how it was really hard to make ends meet. Sad story, right? What she didn't tell you is that she can afford a horse which she holds in a heated stable, along with all the extra costs associated with the horse including a personal trainer and proper vet care. So I don't think I can feel too bad for her having trouble improving her lifestyle when she seems content on spending frivolously and expecting everything else to just come to her. And unfortunately, I believe it is this view that I see in a lot of people who are excited for the change.

As for the title of the thread...umm...do you know what a slippery slope argument is? lol.

I'm sure that some can afford expensive medical bills. I on the other hand, cannot pay for all the money doctors demand when they bubble the price up a hundred fold. If you are concerned about doctors ability to pay for themselves and their expensive treatments, think again.

If lives were unimportant, in comparison to money then why shouldn't law enforcement, and fire department be privatized also? They obviously work risking their own lives, which is much more then just work doctors do. They obviously deserve the money for their hard work. They will protect people who have the ability to pay, but not those who do not. Fire fighters will not put out fire for people who don't have the ability to pay for their operation fees, but will prevent property damages to those around the flames that have the insurance, or the necessary monetary abilities.
Hell, why should slavery still be abolished if money was that important? I can't I just buy people and do as I like with my money, and my property?

Also, I'm not sure why some people prize individuality so much. The dilemma is that is my current position and wealth all because of me, and my effort? Or did other factors such as my environment, my society, and the policies I were directly, or indirectly involved in effect my current position and wealth?

Yeah, there are ways to get compensation, but it really depends on the individual. I know sometimes my dad's friends would hold fundraisers for their friends, but this isn't perfect either.

I'd just like to point out, slippery slope arguments are valid as long as each stage logically implies the next.

I do not consider myself a conservative and more a moderate that is slightly leftish. However, I honestly think that this health care plan is a big problem. The thing is, the reason America has great doctors is that they get paid more for being specialized; it's regular ole capitalism and the merit system.
Besides, our country is already in huge economic debt. According to wikipedia, the health care plan is supposed to some how make money for the government. I have no idea how this is supposed to occur unless the tax is enormous. Anyway, gg America.

Having actually looked at the healthcare bill proposals I can honestly say that I don't know what people are worried about. It is incredibly moderate in comparison to systems in place in other countries, and the burden of the taxation would involve a tax rise either of less than 1% for individuals earning over $200k, or 5.4% for those earning over $500k. Furthermore, the plan seems primarily to be to implement a national health insurance plan alongside existing private plans, to curb unethical practices by private insurers and to subsidise, to an extent, the healthcare of those living in poverty.

As for the 'making money for the government' argument - it has some validity though it seems to have been misunderstood. Essentially, the increased public spending will stimulate demand in the US economy for medical supplies, equipment etc. This doesn't make money for the government directly, but should encourage growth in the economy.

Like I said before, my biggest problem is a fine if you choose to neither get socialized healthcare *or* pursue private options. Its unconstitutional.

EDIT: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html



Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 30 2010, 4:04 pm by Fire_Kame.

That's not the argument they're making. First, what you said is wrong. The health care bill is *supposed* to cut heathcare costs, which means less growth. Second, the bill was designed so that when the CBO ran their analysis, it would come back as a net income. However, even the CBO admits that the bill exploited flaws in their calculations to get the result.

This is clear evidence that your current healthcare system is broken:

No it isn't.

Americans are more likely to die in non medical causes, e.g. shootings, accidents. Besides, that's not proof that we needed the healthcare bill.

Wouldn't better health care increases your chances of surviving shootings and accidents?

For example: Lets say I accidentally get sick like cancer or something and the better healthcare helps me live longer because I can better afford the drugs.

Notice how Cuba, by your standards, has the best care. Cuba is communist. I would like to have control over my money. Not have the government, often ineptly, decide where to spend it. Nty. We pay more because we keep more of our money because we have lower taxes. It is more expensive to live in France than in the United States.

EDIT:
inb4 rage, i know Cuba has a great medical system. However, look at all other aspects in context. The US is a much better place to live.

Shooting, accidents are considered irrelevant in the case of health care. Because the amount of deaths from medical causes are much larger than that of shooting, and accidents. And that your logic was under the assumption that only U.S. have accidents, and 'shooting (murder)'. Accidents and crimes happen all over the world, not just inside the U.S.

Not sure why Cuba is relevant to this. Cuba spends less to have low life expectancy. That is not surprising. However, compare that to the per capita spending in other countries such as Japan to UK. Ironically, they live longer and spend less. The U.S. spends twice as much without much success. Bah, Humbug.

I have to agree with this...but maybe I'm reading the chart wrong? That's why I had hybrid graphs...they are intentionally confusing. :X

Yes, it is. You spend far more than every other country in the world, as presented on that graph, and yet get towards the bottom in terms of outcomes. Clearly your money is not being put to good use.

No, I didn't present "my standards" in relation to that graph at all. I just posted the graph. IMO the best result isn't so much the ratio of spending to outcome, but the overall outcome itself, as long as the spending isn't excessive. So Japan wins (ironic, given the high prevalence of smoking there).

Also you basically picked the communist country so you could make the usual un-informed American "communism is bad" argument. What about Malta or Singapore, which both have low per capita spending and higher life expectancies, and those countries aren't communist, so you can't use your flimsy "I want to keep my money" catchphrase to defend your broken system there.

I don't think this one is intentionally confusing at all, in fact it is really quite simple. Combined graphs are generally much more informative than displaying two separate graphs next to each other, by combining the datasets it is much easier to see relationships between the two datasets.

The issue is that we are not truly fixing our current health care system, we are simply taking the same system, and pouring more money into it so everyone can use the system. It's like pouring more oil into a leaking car, instead of just fixing the hole in your oil reservoir, that's why I argue that the US should have simply fixed the health care system, not pour more money into it so everyone can use a flawed system, and waste money doing so.

One of the provisions in the act is to ensure that at least 85% of money paid to an insurance company in terms of premiums is used to cover health costs of the insured. This in itself will help to cut waste and profiteering from the insurance companies.

Also note that the democrats did want a much stronger bill, but it was the republicans and the media whipping up public opposition to "communism", "socialism", "death panels" and "rationing" that prevented a better bill being put in place. Just watch the videos in the teabagger thread for examples of the idiot public that prevented real progress from being made.

One other thing that you have to consider is that this is a foot in the door. It will be easier going fowards to make amendments to the new act to smooth out trouble areas and improve the workings of it than it would be to raise a complete bill that did everything from A to Z in one shot (which is what was attempted this time, and failed, see above paragraph).

Ah, you mean much stronger in how Nebraska wouldn't need to pay anything to recieve health care? The original bill was horribly flawed, and it's a damn good thing they didn't manage to pass it before anyone could actually analyze what it was going to do.


And why is it that the previous medical laws couldn't be "smoothed out" later? Why was it necessary to put a bill that hasn't been around enough to be fully understood into place, it's like releasing an Alpha version of a website to the public for banking, one that has all sorts of flaws and glitches that allow people to exploit it, but because of a few flaws in the previous system, it had to be completely replaced immediately. Why couldn't they simply have modified the previous laws, which we had already worked the majority of huge flaws out of, to "ensure that at least 85% of money paid to an insurance company in terms of premiums is used to cover health costs of the insured"? There was no need for a complete redo of the system, it simply needed to be patched.