The liberal mythology of healthcare being a right

[Dr Grump]

Or you could live your life like you do - bitch, moan, whine and whinge but offer up no solutions. It's easy to hvae a populisit mantra when you offer nothing

You seem to be doing more than your share of pissing and moaning.

What am I moaning about? I like our health system....

 

[bripat9643]

You seem to be doing more than your share of pissing and moaning.

What am I moaning about? I like our health system....

You will, until you really need it, as when you are in the final stages before you pass on.

 

[Dr Grump]

There's a reason why Americans pay more than the rest of the world for it's heathcare by a mile and the number one reason isn't because the US has allegedly the best healthcare. Other countries regulate or negotiate their costs, you know trying to save not only it's people money but also the government.
But in America, we don't allow our government to negotiate healthcare costs, it's socialism!!!! So as the US becomes more and more under the gun economically because of the cost of healthcare (and we are), we''re doing it so a few can make mega-bucks in the name of free enterprise. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.

I do believe that pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on R&D and a lot of new medical procedures are pioneered by the US medical community. However, you are on the money with regard to the costs being akin to being on a runaway train....and we won't even get into how litigious people are when it comes to medicine...

I think insurance companies rule the world..;o)

 

[Dr Grump]

You seem to be doing more than your share of pissing and moaning.

What am I moaning about? I like our health system....

You will, until you really need it, as when you are in the final stages before you pass on.

Really? I've needed it a couple of times recently. The only complaint I really have is that my specialist might have been over cautious with my treatments. Also he didn't tell me how dangerous a CT scan can be, which he should have done...

 

[Greenbeard]

Socialized medicine cuts cost only by cutting services. Typically, they send people home to die if they are deemed too old for care to be "cost effective." Most of the healthcare dollars in this country are spent during the last 6 months of a person's life.

Many expensive cancer treatments are not available in countries with socialized medicine. Also, patients are put on long waiting lists for treatment. Cases that would be treatable become terminal because they had to wait too long for treatment.

Care is provided to seniors in the United States via an arrangement I can only assume you would describe as "socialized medicine." How do you reconcile this with the distinction you're trying to draw between care provided to the elderly in the U.S. and care provided to the elderly elsewhere?

 

[dblack]

Face it, your system sux. You are the only folks who bitch and moan constantly about your system, while we don't. That suggests it's not a very good one....

My wife had the choice of going to the US or Australia with her job. The US appealed for many reasons, until we saw the monthly health premiums...then Aussie it was...

There's no denying the health care market in the US is seriously screwed up. Health care inflation has been several times the overall inflation rate for a long time. If we don't make serious changes soon, no one will be able to afford it, regardless of who is paying.

But so far, we're just ignoring that problem. And as far as I can tell, the main reason for that is that the vested interests in the health care industry like things just the way they are. They're making boat loads of money and feeling very little pressure to change.

 

[Dr Grump]

Face it, your system sux. You are the only folks who bitch and moan constantly about your system, while we don't. That suggests it's not a very good one....

My wife had the choice of going to the US or Australia with her job. The US appealed for many reasons, until we saw the monthly health premiums...then Aussie it was...

There's no denying the health care market in the US is seriously screwed up. Health care inflation has been several times the overall inflation rate for a long time. If we don't make serious changes soon, no one will be able to afford it, regardless of who is paying.

But so far, we're just ignoring that problem. And as far as I can tell, the main reason for that is that the vested interests in the health care industry like things just the way they are. They're making boat loads of money and feeling very little pressure to change.

About sums it up from what I see....

 

[IndependntLogic]

And of course Libertarian ideology is right all of the time? Wrong. It is chock full of holes and theories that history has proven innacurate over and over again.

Such as?

Just as any economic or political theory is never always right.

If it's not always right, then it's a false theory and should be disposed of. Which economic theories are not always right?

There is no need for federal regulatory agencies like the SEC, USDA, FTC etc.... because if a company produces products or services that are bad or even harmful to the population, "The Magical Market" will make it disappear.

That one's not just wrong, it's stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

And of course Libertarian ideology is right all of the time? Wrong. It is chock full of holes and theories that history has proven innacurate over and over again.

Such as?

Just as any economic or political theory is never always right.

If it's not always right, then it's a false theory and should be disposed of. Which economic theories are not always right?

There is no need for federal regulatory agencies like the SEC, USDA, FTC etc.... because if a company produces products or services that are bad or even harmful to the population, "The Magical Market" will make it disappear.

That one's not just wrong, it's stupid.

It's not wrong.

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

What happens when government does something bad, like the Gun Walker scandal?

So far, zip.

 

[The T]

Such as?



If it's not always right, then it's a false theory and should be disposed of. Which economic theories are not always right?

There is no need for federal regulatory agencies like the SEC, USDA, FTC etc.... because if a company produces products or services that are bad or even harmful to the population, "The Magical Market" will make it disappear.

That one's not just wrong, it's stupid.

It's not wrong.

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

What happens when government does something bad, like the Gun Walker scandal?

So far, zip.

So far Denial, Obfuscation...and excuses.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Such as?



If it's not always right, then it's a false theory and should be disposed of. Which economic theories are not always right?

There is no need for federal regulatory agencies like the SEC, USDA, FTC etc.... because if a company produces products or services that are bad or even harmful to the population, "The Magical Market" will make it disappear.

That one's not just wrong, it's stupid.

It's not wrong.

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

What happens when government does something bad, like the Gun Walker scandal?

So far, zip.

Um yeah. You're full of shet. First off, nice try on changing the subject. I dont hold the theory that the government does nothing wrong so that's a strawman. However you hold the theory that "The Market" and it's army of unicorns will make all well and good.
So let's see. The average citizen, without help from fed agencies, has what percentage chance of prevailing over a major corporation in a plaintiff's tort lawsuit? Oooh! I know! 1%. What are the odds that citizens will even know something harmful is going on without federal regulations?
Ever heard of Ford?
GM?
Eli Lilly?
Kaiser Permanente?
Blue Cross?

Which of the above companies have been found guilty on SEVERAL occasions of negligence and even wrongful death? All of them? Yup. Which have gone out of business because of those practices? Hmmmm. None you say? But the Magical Market would fix that! Hmmm. And WHY do auto companies pay extra to protect gas engines after the Pinto? Hmmm.

How about Sarbanes-Oxley? You don't think we should have that in place after Enron?
The SEC? Because you know, people like Bernie Madoff would certainly never do anything wrong!
NRC? Hmmmm. Three Mile Island? Yankee Power Plant? Yeah, they would have spent millions without government coercion. Of course they would!
USDA? Nevermind. There's no such thing as e. coli. So it's no big deal that thousands of pounds of meat, veggies, eggs etc... have been stopped solely by the EPA before they got to market. And of course, the companies would never have allowed them to get to market and be sold - oh wait... Kroger. Danm facts!

The "Magical Market" doesnt' make companies that harm people go away. And without help from the federal government, a significant number of plaintiff's tort litigation would never see the light of day.

BTW, what is your opinion on class action lawsuits and tort reform? Lemme guess. You think both should be reigned in. Am I right? Because if I am, that would be well...

Do you even know what an actuary is?

 

[Greenbeard]

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

Tort law being touted as a good thing in a thread on health care? You don't see that every day!

 

[IndependntLogic]

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

Tort law being touted as a good thing in a thread on health care? You don't see that every day!

LOL! No doubt! And I'll bet you he's for tort and class-action reform! Gotta stop those frivolous lawsuits, ya know!

 

[mskafka]

There is no need for federal regulatory agencies like the SEC, USDA, FTC etc.... because if a company produces products or services that are bad or even harmful to the population, "The Magical Market" will make it disappear.

That one's not just wrong, it's stupid.

It's not wrong.

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

What happens when government does something bad, like the Gun Walker scandal?

So far, zip.

Um yeah. You're full of shet. First off, nice try on changing the subject. I dont hold the theory that the government does nothing wrong so that's a strawman. However you hold the theory that "The Market" and it's army of unicorns will make all well and good.
So let's see. The average citizen, without help from fed agencies, has what percentage chance of prevailing over a major corporation in a plaintiff's tort lawsuit? Oooh! I know! 1%. What are the odds that citizens will even know something harmful is going on without federal regulations?
Ever heard of Ford?
GM?
Eli Lilly?
Kaiser Permanente?
Blue Cross?

Which of the above companies have been found guilty on SEVERAL occasions of negligence and even wrongful death? All of them? Yup. Which have gone out of business because of those practices? Hmmmm. None you say? But the Magical Market would fix that! Hmmm. And WHY do auto companies pay extra to protect gas engines after the Pinto? Hmmm.

How about Sarbanes-Oxley? You don't think we should have that in place after Enron?
The SEC? Because you know, people like Bernie Madoff would certainly never do anything wrong!
NRC? Hmmmm. Three Mile Island? Yankee Power Plant? Yeah, they would have spent millions without government coercion. Of course they would!
USDA? Nevermind. There's no such thing as e. coli. So it's no big deal that thousands of pounds of meat, veggies, eggs etc... have been stopped solely by the EPA before they got to market. And of course, the companies would never have allowed them to get to market and be sold - oh wait... Kroger. Danm facts!

The "Magical Market" doesnt' make companies that harm people go away. And without help from the federal government, a significant number of plaintiff's tort litigation would never see the light of day.

BTW, what is your opinion on class action lawsuits and tort reform? Lemme guess. You think both should be reigned in. Am I right? Because if I am, that would be well...

Do you even know what an actuary is?

The Ford Pinto! Those things were coffins on tires.

 

[mskafka]

If products are harmful, you can sue the manufacturer. No USDA, FDA or any other government agency needed. Corporations are more concerned about getting sued than getting fined by some federal bureaucracy. Look what happened to Jack in the Box when one some customers got sick eating in one of its restaurants: it nearly went out of business. Look what happened to Toyota when some mainstream media outlets maliciously accused it of selling defective automobiles. It lost billions in market share.

Tort law being touted as a good thing in a thread on health care? You don't see that every day!

LOL! No doubt! And I'll bet you he's for tort and class-action reform! Gotta stop those frivolous lawsuits, ya know!

Some reform would be nice in healthcare. But I will continue to preach to people: You do NOT want lawsuits in healthcare to go away, completely. Every person in healthcare can tell you of a physician that they've watched kill someone. It wasn't done intentionally. It was incompetence. An orogastric tube placed into a patient, when the doc KNEW that she has esophageal varices (while everyone kept begging him not to place the tube), a patient who was nasally intubated with a stylette in the tube, which ended up perforating the patient's trachea-which gave her a collapsed lung, which the paramedic and the flight nurses found...and basically shoved the doctor out of the way so that they could insert a chest tube-as she was minutes away from cardiac arrest. (fortunately, he no longer practices medicine....in this country anyway.)

That would be my concern. If the right to sue for malpractice were taken away, too many incompetent physicians would slip through the cracks.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Tort law being touted as a good thing in a thread on health care? You don't see that every day!

LOL! No doubt! And I'll bet you he's for tort and class-action reform! Gotta stop those frivolous lawsuits, ya know!

Some reform would be nice in healthcare. But I will continue to preach to people: You do NOT want lawsuits in healthcare to go away, completely. Every person in healthcare can tell you of a physician that they've watched kill someone. It wasn't done intentionally. It was incompetence. An orogastric tube placed into a patient, when the doc KNEW that she has esophageal varices (while everyone kept begging him not to place the tube), a patient who was nasally intubated with a stylette in the tube, which ended up perforating the patient's trachea-which gave her a collapsed lung, which the paramedic and the flight nurses found...and basically shoved the doctor out of the way so that they could insert a chest tube-as she was minutes away from cardiac arrest. (fortunately, he no longer practices medicine....in this country anyway.)

That would be my concern. If the right to sue for malpractice were taken away, too many incompetent physicians would slip through the cracks.

You make valid concerns but on the Big Picture it's even worse. Imagine if tort reform against HMO's went through limiting punatives to $250K or 20x the annual income or other such nonsense. You would have the actuaries telling the PCP liasions to go ahead and deny til they die. After all, $250K is less than $400K right?

Ironic that the same Machine that convinces these people a public option would be death and disaster, also conditions them to believe tort reform would be good for business and therefore, for the country.

 

[midcan5]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

If we agree it is a right it is, simple as that. Some would argue any which way on any which way, so in the end democracy decides and it decided recently. That is its function call it whatever.

I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"

The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?

I guess then we throw up our hands and say what exactly? Die, oh, you have money? give it to me, like Jesus I charge to save, he didn't? you sure? oh....


I have to get out my old logic textbook, what is the faulty argument that when using a word like 'right' you attach it to something and all solutions disappear? Conservative and libertarian's constitutive principles defines a situation in which the answers flow easily and often paradoxically. But oddly there was a time when people felt differntly and said so.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. ¶ Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-healthcare-being-a-right-25.html#post4763674

 

[dblack]

Still looking for the argument that healthcare is a right.

If we agree it is a right it is, simple as that. Some would argue any which way on any which way, so in the end democracy decides and it decided recently. That is its function call it whatever.

No, that's just wrong. Calling health care a "right" isn't a statement of values, it's a category error. We can all 'agree' that a cow is a bird, but that won't give it the power of flight.

I'd like the 'health care is a right' people to answer the question "How much health care?"

The unfortunate fact is, all of us will face the the point where we can't afford enough health care to stay alive. What then?

I guess then we throw up our hands and say what exactly? Die, oh, you have money? give it to me, like Jesus I charge to save, he didn't? you sure? oh....


I have to get out my old logic textbook, what is the faulty argument that when using a word like 'right' you attach it to something and all solutions disappear? Conservative and libertarian's constitutive principles defines a situation in which the answers flow easily and often paradoxically. But oddly there was a time when people felt differntly and said so.

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. ¶ Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-healthcare-being-a-right-25.html#post4763674

The logical fallacy you're looking for is "equivocation". And, at least on the part of those leading this campaign, I think it's deliberate. The goal is to radically broaden the responsibility, and power, of the federal government. It's widely accepted that the US Constitution charges the government with protecting our rights. By erroneously declaring being take care of as a "right", statists hope to evade resistance to their plans with wordgames rather than persuasion and democracy. That might make it sound trivial, but it's not. Orwell rightly recognized the supreme power inherent in controlling language. If your crowd gets away with this doublespeak, we're taking a giant leap down the road to tyranny.

 

[G.T.]

Define a right, dblack.

 

[dblack]

Define a right, dblack.

In the context of the US Constitution, it's a freedom to act unhindered by other people.