Printable View
There are a lot of charities and state, county, and local programs that provide free health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
That unfortunate lady Obama used in his speeches, Ms. Canfield I believe was her name, received, in his words, "aggressive" treatment even though she had no insurance and no means to pay.
so we, the tax payer, are going to fund the state and county programs right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
You idiots are as stupid as Palin. There will be NO death panels.
Well, I would actually rather government get out of the business of charity, all together but, as local, county, and state governments already own (by virtue of my tax dollars) all forms of health care provision, from clinics to Level III Trauma Centers, I don't much see the need for the federal government to come in and muck it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I would rather the local governments work towards divesting themselves of private enterprise.
What do you mean 'the next logical step'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
That's how government has been run since pretty much forever. It either controls the services and good it provides directly (security, education, etc, etc, etc) or creates distortions (some valid, some don't) on third party services and goods through regulation, taxation, subsidies, etc.
What you remain convinced of is irrelevant. There's certain cases where the generic solution doesn't work, for a number of different reasons, and we need to make it work. Take the subsidies to agriculture. We could easily not hand it to them but then we risk having to import massive amounts of food, and be captive to that market, much like we're captive to oil. Free enterprise doesn't work there, because free enterprise cannot compete with the rest of the world, but there's a legitimate interest to circumvent that and keep production in our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
With healthcare we can debate all day the importance of having a healthy population overall or not. And at what cost.
This bill doesn't entirely address that point however. It also doesn't grants ability to deny coverage to any of these new government agencies. It actually does the opposite: It implements a bonus system for those that apply methods that the other agency determines to be good care.
They start to lie? Didn't know they ever stopped, so they could start again....Quote:
The New York Times starts laying...
"charities and state, county, and local programs that provide free health care."
and, just like Fed, they can print FIAT money to cover their costs, and never use taxpayer funds. ignorant fucking assholes, every one of you. :lol
two of the most innocuous editorials ever written as your clarion call for Obama's defeat in 2012? Really, Yoni? You used to be better than this.
Laying, lying: it's all the same thing. . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I thought it was a typo...Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
That is a logical fallacy. Your arguments would be much more effective if you would refrain from them. The statement/question "So, the next logical step is for government... to determine how all goods and services should be distributed?" is somewhat misleading, being something of a strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
People advocating for UHC and single payor systems are not saying that all goods and services should be distributed, because it is, by its nature different than say, pens or haircuts. Deny someone a pen, they might find something else to write with, but deny someone a medication that lowers their blood pressure, and they end up in the emergency room.
Let's start with some basic ethical questions so we can both find some common ground, and work from there.
Is it ethical to allow someone in the United States to starve to death if they cannot afford enough food?
I am not asking for any advanced arguments, just a simple premise, so don't make any more of this than it is on its face. We will diverge soon enough, but let's just get one basic thing/agreement made explicit. Please.
"the next logical step is for government"
read that as: "the next Yoni-logical step is for government" :lol
that boy flatters himself with his impeccable logic, but is blinded by his vanity that his logic sucks.
As for Death Panels:
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amaz...antsonfire.gif
Palin Death panel remark sets Truth-o-meter fire
Quote:
End-of-life care counseling would be voluntary
Provision calls for Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- the provision former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cited -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 8/13/09]
Ethical or moral? There's a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
It might be ethical if, say, they couldn't afford food because they blew their money on non-essentials. It would absolutely be ethical for me to keep my money and feed my own family for a longer period of time than it would be for me to spend a portion of my money to feed the irresponsible and run the risk of my family doing without somewhere down the road.
It still may not be moral but, that would depend on complex circumstances that you seem not to want to explore at the outset.
And, therein lies the rub. I don't expect my government to act on morality...that's the job of people. If government would stop confiscating the billions and trillions they mismanage to provide charity, the American people could feed, clothe, house, and medically treat all those that need it much better and more efficiently.
Any government bureaucracy that makes decisions on standards of care, what treatments will be covered, or which patients are to receive treatments is a death panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Is an HMO/PPO bureaucracy that does the same equally a death panel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
No, it's a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
That's my point. Health care isn't a right, it's a good or service that has value not because of what it offers customers but, due to the investments of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc...and for what people are willing to pay to receive it. To treat it as a right, to be managed by the government, devalues the investment and degrades the service and availability for everyone.
At least with an HMO/PPO, a person has the opportunity to negotiate health care privately; either by applying for charity or a subsidy of some type. With government-managed health care, which will eventually be the only provider, you won't have that option.
But fundamentally, it's still making the same decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Oh yes, the old "Capitalism can't fight the government" boogeyman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Because it's their money at risk, not yours and mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
D'okie dokie.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
It's still a third party bureaucrat making a decision about whether a particular course of medical treatment is economically efficacious, which is a "rationing" of health care, which you seem to suggest is an inevitable result of the recent health care bill, and which you've characterized as being a decision made by a death panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
The only difference is who's money is at stake, but ultimately, in each circumstance, detached third parties are making decisions about affording medical care to individuals who need it. Economically, the situations are different; morally or ethically, they certainly seem indistinguishable.
And, for the record, I'm not in favor of those practices under any circumstance.
this dude is smart!Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
What is health care but life? I thought Republicans were pro-life. It seems only people with money are allowed to live.
If your wealthy enough to afford healthcare.. or accoring to yoni you can go get charityQuote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
What agencies are they and what authority are they given to do this and how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
"established agencies that will ration care"
Like a right-wing extremist, he has to make up magical shit to make his bogus case.
Like Breitbart doctoring the ACORN tapes to make a bogus case.
Like McLiar claming he was never a Maverick.