Healthcare--a right or not?

You don't see a difference between a child throwing a tantrum and a person in need of medical care?

Anyway, a way to avoid you scenario is to avoid the candy store.
One can't avoid healthcare, unless they just want to die. Which we all will some day. But hopefully a child with diabetes doesn't have to if they can get access to healthcare.

 

and still the people in certain state should be united to have that so called backbone.
is unity that hard to achieve?

 

For years now I have read Democrats assaulting the US health care industry. i don't call it a system, I call it the industry.

Yet not one of them has demonstrated any scope of knowinf the topic by showing concrete evidence.

I looked for many hours at one point to see what the world looked like for health care. What I found was not as nice as proposed by USA democrats. They need to do a lot more research.

My thesis for years now is multi faceted.

Define the problem
Explain what happened
Suggest new ways

Problem started when insurance first got sold to pay doctors bills. Ahead of that, Americans could bargain and indeed did bargain and even paid in barter. Doctors then got into their cars and visited patients at home. Strangely enough, at that time the public outcry over doctor bills never took place.

Insurance firms saw nothing but profit. They invented health care insurance. And though few wanted it, some still purchased it. Then Henry Kaiser during WW2 came up with the idea his company could provide it for workers. And he created the Kaiser Health care plan. Later he decided it could be offered to the general public. It may have remained as low in cost as prior but for the Government getting involved. Government always spends far too much no matter the item. The cost of airplanes skyrockets when government wants airplanes. Ships escalate in price.

I once owned a machine shop so testify this is fact. I got an order to make a half dozen aluminum parts. To be sure, they were complex. I was told the Air Force was the customer. I made what amounted to electronic chassis. This was in 1970. I paid top wages to my machinists. Top wage then was $5.50 per hour for my foreman. He was really who did the job.

First the material. This was aluminum. Not merely aluminum, but a highly specialized grade of aluminum. Worse, it was not stress relieved by stretching, but by compression. When you buy aluminum, when you need it stress relieved, they do it by stretching it. To compress it makes it very out of normal. Costs more in other words.

The parts we made had to be error free. And we had very tight tolerances. Anyway, at the time my out the door cost to the contractor was $455 per piece as i recall. I suggested to the contractor a less costly way to do the job. They said the Government insisted so we did it the Government way.

This for me indicts government for not caring what costs are.

When they did it to medicine, it was more of the corrupt system so naturally health care costs much more.

I am more than happy to take questions.

Summary ... when consumers do not directly pay for commodities, they quit seeking bargains. Since they no longer care what things cost, since insurance pays or the Government pays, the outcome leads to higher and higher costs.

There must be a way to solve this. I know by looking at the Federal Budget, they are heading us into a national bankruptcy.

A new solution seems quite reasonable and fair to me. I don't care what Germany does since the Germans do not pay our taxes or the bills of this government.

 

We in CA do not actually feel a close bond with Nevada nor Arizona nor Oregon. And to assume we have a bond with Florida or MA or Virginia, et al would be a crazy case for we in CA to try to make.

Many of us feel isolated from the Federal government yet heavily imposed upon by the guys in DC. They never quit making laws.

And if it only applied to them and federal workers, I would not fret quite so much. But they in DC make laws that mess me over.

And yet i am told to be loyal to the guys in DC. Very counterproductive.

 

So you think people fight wars because they don't know that killing is ordinarily wrong? You think that Nazi officers offered no justification when called to account for what they had done? You think they sat there dumbfounded as if they were being asked to justify their preference for bratwurst over wienerschnitzel? No, those who did not DEFER BLAME by saying they were just following orders had elaborate, internally coherent justifications based on utilitarian ethics prepared. They had put a great deal of effort into rationalizing what they were doing. Why would they go to such lengths to rationalize something they didn't even think of as wrong? Am I the one who needs to read all the propaganda from the German government geared toward convincing the people to go along with what they knew of what was being done? Am I the one who needs to read Islamic law to find out that even they don't consider murder or rape to be legal? No, you need to read history. You need to read what warmongers and slaveholders, themselves have said about their own actions. Those who address them always rationalize. Again, the only people who don't feel compelled to justify atrocious are psychopaths. And there's another pointer: In experiments like this, doctors are not at all confused about what kind of stimuli to show the test subjects. If people were like you want to say they are, the kind of imagery provoking empathetic reactions would be completely inconsistent, even random if we take you seriously. Instead, they do this

because they know damn good and well, just like everyone else, that normal people react negatively to the suffering of other people.

1) If you still can't see that I'm making very modest claims about the same thing everyone else means by natural law, then I don't know what else to tell you.
2) There is enough.

 

DC would have second thoughts when politicizing matters if they find that the people are quite cohesive.
The people's will should be imposed not there's.

 

No I'm not.

- - - Updated - - -

No I'm not.

 

What do you mean by "need" healthcare?

There's so much to unpack here, and I don't want to say you are being obtuse, but I think you do understand that there is a lot more required to your argument than simply "we need X". I need chicken to make chicken soup, but I don't need chicken soup. I can make do with tomato soup, I guess. And after searching under the cushions on my couch, I can afford to buy a tomato with what I found there along with what is in my piggy bank. I can't afford the tomato and a candy bar, so I will make do with just the tomato.

So are we talking chicken soup style of healthcare or tomato soup? Something you can't afford or something you can?

 

When you are sick you NEED healthcare. This ain't soup

 

Actually, I didn't. That was just you reading more into what I write than is there, like WillReadmore keeps doing. I do have to admit that slaveholders have had legal rights to their slaves, and so do you unless you want to redefine a legal right. Is this supposed to prove something about the worth of legal rights?

 

So how about we make a "compromise" of some sort? Give healthcare coverage to the disabled people. People who are unable to work due to illness. I cannot in my good conscience say to these people that they will just have to die if they get sick. But we make the able-bodied people work for their healthcare coverage. We shouldn't coddle leeches.

 

Democrats prevent that.

 

How about we give it to everyone. EVERYONE

 

I get all of my health care paid for by government.

now why do I argue the current system is wrong?

I collect from the system. Why blast them when i am a collector?

I care about the financial well being of this country. Were I to drop dead this afternoon, only my immediate family will miss me. Even missing me won't bring me back.

Factually I do not fear death.

It has to be strange to fear what always happens to each person. Death ends it.

So the question for me is should Government do a job not located in the constitution? I say no. If it is to be included in the constitution,. this means by public consent and then I say yes.

Why does it cost your savings to show up for surgery?

There is a root cause of that. It once was quite reasonable to get surgery. That old saw bones gave you some booze and sawed off that leg. And he then got a drink and off he want.

Trumps wants to make health care cheaper and equally as good as now.

I see the staff my own doctor has. I ask how on earth can several doctors need to employ so many women that sit by the computer poking at the keyboards. Why does my doctor have a billing department? A department to work with insurance firms and one to work with medicare? That is a ton of overhead.

Then we wonder why doctors charge so much. Much of the costs consumed are due to insurance plus to government.

Those are not minor costs.

- - - Updated - - -

What about steaks for me? Will you pay for steaks and lobster?

 

Eat all the steaks you like. You benefit from a government paid doctor and deny others the same. Typical conservative

- - - Updated - - -

Eat all the steaks you like. You benefit from a government paid doctor and deny others the same. Typical conservative

- - - Updated - - -

Eat all the steaks you like. You benefit from a government paid doctor and deny others the same. Typical conservative

 

The best concrete evidence that exists is the working systems of other nations.

The reason is that every design you or I might describe is not going to be testable, and the exact results in terms of our economy, usage pattern, total cost, etc., etc. is necessarily going to be in question. That is what Pelosi meant in her oft repeated and totally misrepresented quote.

Yet, by looking at these other nations, we can SEE what people are actually doing. We can SEE the problem that France faced with too many people using the system frivolously, and the success of what they did about it. We can compare that to Germany's system. We can see how it works out in Belgium and other places where the single payer system covers less than what many want, and people can then buy insurance to extend that (a little like we have with Medicare). Some countries have at least some government providers. etc., etc.

The idea that you are asking Democrats to do this investigation hits me as just a method of dodging the issue, as Republicans are showing ZERO interest in including Democrats like the Democrats did with their bi-partisan congressional health care committees.

Today, Republicans aren't even interested in talking about what the requirements and/or objectives for a new health care system might be.

 

The difference between a luxury and a necessity? We can go that route if you want, but we have lots of necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that healthcare is the least of those since it's only necessary for some. We all need food, clothing, and shelter.

So since you want to go there, why the big push for healthcare, but not shelter, food, and clothing?

 

We can certainly agree to that if we are talking about people who want to voluntarily give it out of the charity of their heart.

If you want the state to decide who is unable to work due to handicaps, then N frickin' O!

Sorry, but the state has already proven to be incredibly inefficient, and that they can't discriminate between the truly handicapped, and the lazy. I've seen that so many times first-hand, where people who could easily work are on benefits because they just don't want to work, and have figured out how to work the system.

Do you know how many times I've seen a handicapped license plate on a car only to find out that the only handicap the driver has is an inability to stop gorging themselves on moon pies and big macs?

 

You aren't going to survive long without food. So you are wrong.

 

Just that. See a doctor for a flu, cold, rash, etc.
Or more serious needs, heart attack, cancer, etc.
Healthcare is anything where a visit to a provider is needed.

 

In our society, we have the means for food, clothing, and shelter. The welfare system in most cases.
And perhaps healthcare is included in some cases. But it seems there are those who were not able to get healthcare without an ER visit.

 

The government can compel us to pay taxes; but they can't "constitutionally" compel us to buy something we may or may not want to buy; and that includes health insurance. Yes, it is that simple.

 

Is it a legal right or not? If they don't give the care, could they be sued and found guilty of neglecting their legal duty?

It's yes or no.

 

No, we don't have the means to provide food, clothing, and shelter to everybody. That's why you see so many homeless encampments. I passed one guy just the other day who looked as miserable as a wet dog in the rain, and judging from the looks of him, he wasn't headed back to his apartment for a nice relaxing evening of sitting by the fire in his slippers and smoking jacket.

If we're talking about needs, I'm sorry but housing comes before health care. If I'm homeless, I'm not worried about health insurance.

 

I have carefully studied Europes system plus Asia's system. I did not bother with Africa's system and I believe I excluded the systems of South America.

My finding has been for the most part that we compare a vast area where it has 50 separate governments to other nations whose size might make some decent states in the USA. First there never has been a provision for the DC boys to take over health care. We have 50 separate governments for a good reason.