Other People

1. Wait, I’m confused….I thought you said you were going to move to Canada?

2. @Michael Johnson: As long as I never need the healthcare!

3. National health care works the majority of the time. Over here we get those kinda cases once in a blue moon, but you have to remember that you only hear about the bad cases, not the good.

4. booyah.

   (that means I agree with Harry. that article proves no legitimate connection to UHC. And don’t make me find the exact same article about health care in the states— because I’ll do it… oh, I’ll do it alright.)

5. @ryan: No legitimate connection? Except that it happened within that system. But you’re right. I’m sure it’s happened in the. Probably in Southern California… since they have faux-UHC. And it doesn’t work.

   Btw, you do realize that by law everyone in the US has healthcare right? It’s just not government (read: taxpayer) subsidized… But a clinic, hospital, etc. cannot legally dismiss anyone who is in need of care.

6. I’d love to see your sources on that.

   From what I know, they get care if they’re lucky. And typically, they’re still billed. and if they’re not, guess who covers them? The US government. Whee! But prove me wrong, I’d like to see what you’ve got.

   Just because it happened in the system doesn’t mean it was the fault of the system. That’s a logical fallacy to the MAX. There are a million of other factors that could be at play there— I’m not saying it isn’t possible… I’m just saying that article doesn’t prove any connection.

   I’ve heard the above story thousands of times in the US (maybe not leading to death..), especially when it comes to emergency room cases. And not in SoCal. You gotta give some proof to say things like: “Probably in Southern California… since they have faux-UHC. And it doesn’t work.”

   Here’s a great link, especially number 3: “Our wait times are low because many of us aren’t getting care at all.”

   http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_reasons_why_american_health_care_is_so_bad

7. oh. one more interesting fact which probably puts things into perspective even for me.. It’s true, UHC is still an ideal… even under Obama’s plans. Still, it’s better than the alternatives:

   http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/journal-disputes-mccains-health-care-claims/

8. @ryan: More than anything I don’t like the fact that I have a job that I worked hard to get. I also have health insurance through that job, which gets deducted from my paycheck. I pay for it. With what I earn. One of two things will happen if socialised healthcare gets passed:

   1. I will continue having that amount deducted from my paycheck, and my income taxes and medicare taxes will go up, meaning I have even more of my hard earned cash taken from my paycheck for services I rarely use and now to pay for someone else’s (and in all probability someone who is too lazy to get a job or education or even attempt upward mobility) healthcare.

   2. My school will ditch the good healthcare I have now, meaning I will get that money back. But my income/medicare taxes will go up to pay for lousy new healthcare and to pay for else’s (and in all probability someone who is too lazy to get a job or education or even attempt upward mobility) healthcare.

   So in the end I lose either way. And we still don’t help people become responsible for themselves or to become citizens contributing to society. It’s another handout. Another reason to skirt responsibility. And another easy way out.

9. Why do you have to assume that everyone that benefits from social programs are “too lazy to get a job or education or attempt upward mobility” ?

   Listen, I’m sure people abuse the system— but people abuse every system. You’re not throwing out the whole capitalist system even though wall street execs obviously abused that. What you’re suggesting is… it’s better to allow rich execs the opportunity to abuse the system then the single mother of 4 working three jobs. (because that happens…and it’s unfair for you to broadly stereotype those who benefit from social programs.) The way I see it, I’d rather leave the safety net there for people who don’t have any other options, because some of them are sincerely struggling.

   but, hey… still no proof on health care law, or “UHC in soCal”….

10. No, I didn’t say everyone. I said in all probability there will be those people in the system.

    And I reject your ad hominem argument. I said nothing of the sort about execs. But in your statement above you are using their abuse of our financial systems as an excuse for everyone to abuse a system. In doing that you toss ethics out the window.

    And I’m at work at the moment. Contributing to society and providing for my family. Let me get off the clock to pull those for you. I would like your reasoned argument for why you feel it’s the government’s responsibility to implement things like that. Why doesn’t the government give everyone a house too? Or a car? Or implement Maslow’s entire hierarchy of needs through taxes? When was healthcare (a service mind you, in the service industry) ever a right? It sure ain’t there in the constitution.

11. no, I’m not using it as an excuse, I’m using it as a point. There will always be someone who abuses the system. your preference favors the rich and greedy. I don’t think people should be lazy and free ride any more than you do, but I share your realism in the sense that I know it happens —Still, I would rather open up the door to do some good for those who need it most than to close the door on those people because of other lazy people.

    The government typically does whats best for itself— educated people cause better innovation, better jobs, more money. i.e. “public schools.” People tend to work better and harder if they can sleep at night, and they can’t sleep at night if their house burns down. i.e. “emergency services”.

    Typically… government programs are based on consensus of what services people think should be available to all, regardless of income. I believe health insurance should be available for the 47 million (or even 10 million if you don’t believe the numbers) people who don’t have it. I believe GOOD health insurance should be available for the the rest of the country that has shitty coverage. And that is quickly becoming general consensus.

    You’re right, it’s not in the constitution, but unless Michael J. Fox brought the Delorian, they probably didn’t have a concept of health care. Still, it’s recognized quite widely as a human right, even established under the UN Human Rights charter:

    “The human right to health guarantees “the creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.”
    - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 12

    You could make an argument that shelter is a human right (maybe not a good one, but one nonetheless), but not a car — which is probably why there are government sponsored housing programs, and not government-sponsored Car Lots. (though, public transportation kinda fills that need anyway.

12. p.s. the constitution doesn’t mention education either — do you disagree that that’s a right?

13. http://www.medlaw.com/healthlaw/EMTALA/statute/emergency-medical-treatme.shtml

14. BTW…I think that the view of Education as a right is a primary reason for the current condition of our educational system. Too many view education, as in a college prep education, as a right of all people. As a result, vocational and technical education have been pushed to the back burner, and a college education (partially because of the natural watering down that happens when everyone is encouraged to pursue one) is now not as extensive, nor as valuable as it used to be.

    I really do not know where exactly you ended up (it has been a long time), but did you really think that your college experience was enhanced by essentially having everyone having the opportunity to avail themselves to it?

    I would like to see more people eligible for quality healthcare too, but not if it means hamstringing our economy to do so.

15. Education comes under either the 9th or 10th Amendment…meaning that it is a states rights issue. It was never expressed right, and was never intended to be a Federal issue…thus my opposition to NCLB.