The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[QuagmireMcGuire]

And one more thing, I just want to say this even though it may be against my best interests but without lawyers, the perimeter of societal expectations and obligations would never have been set. The legal profession is a reflection of the society in which we serve. :bigmouth_


:watching2

 

[ChunksJR]

And one more thing, I just want to say this even though it may be against my best interests but without lawyers, the perimeter of societal expectations and obligations would never have been set. The legal profession is a reflection of the society in which we serve. :bigmouth_


:watching2

What a great reason NOT to let them decide what kind of health care I have. QE motherf'n D.

 

[Fmr1833]

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html

 

[Spekkio]

OK. YOU are making a CHOICE. It's a free country (in theory), so do what you want with regards to your own healthcare planning.

Do NOT expect me to pay for whatever calamity and/or unexpected severe illness you get (God forbid) between now and the time you get insurance.

First of all, I don't expect you or anyone else to foot my bill for medical insurance. I recognize that I made a choice, and that choice involves both positives and negatives.

Second of all, if a single-payer healthcare plan were in place, I'd be paying into it. I do work full-time, after all.

Thirdly, you already are footing the bill for anyone else who gets ill under your insurance plan. That's partly how insurance companies make money -- the odds are against any individual needing medical attention, so all the money gets pooled together for the few that do. If you're not the one getting sick, then you're paying for someone else's medical bills.

Insurance already is a socialistic practice, it's just run by a private company instead of the government.

That's a good point that I was going to bring up. If we put aside universal health care for the moment, I think fixing our legal system would be a huge step in the right direction. Part of the reason our health care costs are so large are due to seedy lawyers, frivilous lawsuits and unrealisticaly large payouts. I can't tell you how many billboards I see for cheesy injury lawyers (often in spanish out here in CA). There is a looming doctor shortage just as we have seen a nursing shortage for the past decade. In Florida there is an OB doctor shortage- something like 40% of their gross goes to paying malpractice insurance.

Lawsuits aren't even the beginning of the whole story. As I said before, there is much more to the perceived high cost of medicine. Doctors have to over-bill insurance companies so they can be paid their going rate, rather than $25/hour for a job they went to school for 8 years to get. The fighting back and forth over something so simple as a routine physical costs money because the insurance company has to pay someone a salary to handle the paperwork. You have pharmaceutical companies putting commercials on TV for prescription drugs. I have never before seen in my short time on earth a group of companies that makes so much profit that they can afford to overtly advertise to a group of people who cannot legally buy their product.

Malpractice insurance is quite high. Is that price set where it ought to be? I really don't know, since I didn't actually make it as far as being a doctor. But I do know that eliminating frivolous lawsuits is only a small part of the big equation of inflated health care costs.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

You came to the right board to tell that to.



Because the Gov't didn't pay more for those who live unhealthier than others they took away their freedom???? I think we can both agree that if you fvck away your own decisions, how could it remain MY freedom to pay more for your REHAB/OD/Liver Replacement/Lung Cancer/Gastric Bypass/Drunk Driving Accident...MANY Americans already abuse their own freedom...what would happen if CONSEQUENCES of DESTRUCTIVE DECISIONS were paid for as well?!!?



So, Answer this one: Would you support a draft??? Living where you live, I doubt it. But that precious freedom you're arguing for has been given to you by a draft...you benefit(ed) from military service, so I guess by your reasoning you better give your time to that same military service...

And it should be your own decisions what you recieve and what you give to society. Because I'm not poor, should I be forced to give to the poor that only ENCOURAGES them to remain poor? I don't feel that welfare is a significant enough portion of our GNP to actually argue over it, but I DO feel it's BULL$HIT.



And as mentioned above, your destructive lifestyle should result in YOUR medical bills that YOU pay for, not me paying for them.



So, if your local mayor sees you spank your kid and decides you're not a fit mother, does that give them the right to decide that you are not a good parent and take them from you? Socialism begins with deciding that your individual rights (such as to punish your child in your own manner) are eclipsed by what is right in society's opinion.

Would I support a draft?

When you guys turn 18, you march done to the gubment and sign that selective service thing, right? Is that your draft card or what-not?

I didn't have to sign that. Being heartless, I guess I could say that I wholly support such a measure since it doesn't impact me. But, what you fail to recognize is that I am quite willing and anticipate being part of the military service.

This is how I perceive our respective philosphies: you- I don't want to have to pay for someone's bad choices -- me- I can't fathom how you don't want to provide something so essential and beneficial as health care for those unable to help themselves. Am I right? We'll never reach a common ground because we are arguing from two different levels. Oh well, its fun.

As to the comment about spanking your kid, I should mention that I worked in a Guardian ad Litem attorney's office for a short time. We were those people petitioned to have children removed from abusive homes so to answer your question, if the courts have deemed that it would be in the best interest of my child to be taken from my custody then so be it. Until the age of adulthood, all children belong to our society; this is why education is compulsory and there are separate and distinct laws which impact children.

Following your definition of socialism, America has always been a socialist state because America has always determined the needs of the people over the needs of the individual. You have the freedom of speech but you are not free to walk into a crowded theater and scream fire. You can not incite a riot. You can not commit slander/libel against another without being held accountable. We have laws to protect the people; not just the individual. If I prosecute a case and you are the victim, I am prosecuting on behalf of the people and you are secondary, only the story of how the defendant broke the laws governing the people.

 

[HH-60H]

I didn't have to sign that. Being heartless, I guess I could say that I wholly support such a measure since it doesn't impact me. But, what you fail to recognize is that I am quite willing and anticipate being part of the military service.

Why didn't you have to register with the Selective Service?

 

[insanebikerboy]

Your individual free choice shall always be eclipsed by these human rights.

Your individual free choice isn't eclipsed by any "universal" human right. That's why it's called free choice. I can go and make any choice I want, regardless of what human rights may or may not exist. For example, I can go out and kill someone, which is my choice, but in so doing I just deprived another person of their right to life. As a result, I'm now going to be subject to any retribution, because I've depraved someone else of their human rights. However, if I go out and try to kill myself but don't succeed, why am I not tried for convicted murder? Because it was a choice that I made to deprive myself of a human right, not that anyone else made for me. As such, I would be the person solely responsible for that.

Correlating that to UHC, if a person makes poor life choices, say alcoholism, and develops kidney failure, that was of their own volition. No one forced them to start drinking or to continue drinking. As a result, no one else should be responsible for the outcome of said drinking (kidney failure), and the associated costs with it. However, if by some occurrence that same person hadn't drank, but say got punched in the kidneys and had kidney failure, wouldn't it be expected that the assaulter would be responsible? Yes.

Personally, I try and help people when I can. I throw money in the Salvation Army bucket, hell, once I bought a homeless guy a hamburger. The difference between that and UHC is that I did it of my own volition, not because I had to. I don't believe I should be obligated to pay into a system that essentially rewards people for stupid decisions, and then those same people essentially expect a handout to right those stupid decisions.

Individual human rights aren't the responsibility of every other person when individuals make choices that affect only their personal well being. However, when choices start affecting others and their human rights, that's when an issue develops. That's why I think UHC is a bad idea, because under this system a lifetime of bad decisions is essentially negated by the rest of the populace.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Following your definition of socialism, America has always been a socialist state because America has always determined the needs of the people over the needs of the individual. You have the freedom of speech but you are not free to walk into a crowded theater and scream fire. You can not incite a riot. You can not commit slander/libel against another without being held accountable. We have laws to protect the people; not just the individual. If I prosecute a case and you are the victim, I am prosecuting on behalf of the people and you are secondary, only the story of how the defendant broke the laws governing the people.

Yes, you can walk into any building and yell fire all day long. If no one reacts, no one leaves, etc, then you're fine. The mere act ofy elling fire is not illegal, but in your post it seems as if you said it is. I'm not going to go to jail or court if I simply yell fire.

However, the OUTCOME of yelling fire is what your responsible for. No one is telling me I can't say whatever I want, just that I'll be responsible for an outcome. Reference Westboro Baptist Church and their recent court case. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/index.html

No one told those protestors they couldn't protest, only that if they did, they'd be liable for the harm caused.

If you think America is a socialist state, your sadly mistaken. No one has their rights infringed, and the rights exist for the individual, not the other way around. That's the problem nowadays, I think people are starting to forget that.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

That retribution committed against you for taking away another's life means that we value the sanctity of life over your personal freedom. In many ways, this is why the abortion debate is also such a polarizing topic but that's another time and thread.

Up until recently, in some jurisdictions attempted suicide was a crime;today, if you tried to kill yourself by driving head first into a semi and you life and the semi-driver dies then you will be held criminally accountable. There was a case dealing with this situation recently in Chicago. Now a days, you are taken into police custody and sent to a clinic for observation. This against your will but for your own good.

Through the UHC, you are paying into a system which benefits everyone- those who make good choices and those who make bad choices. By denying this system, you penalize those who have managed to slip through the cracks. There are still people who have to choose between health insurance, food, and shelter. And, I am not talking about the indigent; there are millions of people who are under insured.

I really beg you all to actually read the UHC plans that are being promoted. They are not the plans which allow for the government to administer our health care. There are many theories and applications of Universal Health Care; the ones on the table wish to mandate that every single individual possess health care whether it is provided privately, through your employer or through the government.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Why didn't you have to register with the Selective Service?

Because she's a woman. Only men have to.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Yes, you can walk into any building and yell fire all day long. If no one reacts, no one leaves, etc, then you're fine. The mere act ofy elling fire is not illegal, but in your post it seems as if you said it is. I'm not going to go to jail or court if I simply yell fire.

However, the OUTCOME of yelling fire is what your responsible for. No one is telling me I can't say whatever I want, just that I'll be responsible for an outcome. Reference Westboro Baptist Church and their recent court case. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/funeral.protest/index.html

No one told those protestors they couldn't protest, only that if they did, they'd be liable for the harm caused.

If you think America is a socialist state, your sadly mistaken. No one has their rights infringed, and the rights exist for the individual, not the other way around. That's the problem nowadays, I think people are starting to forget that.

Of course you can yell fire. But, the government has determined that the needs of the people outweigh your freedom of speech in this instance. If your words incite public mayhem then that is when your freedom ends. My point is that your freedom is bound by a perimeter; it won't be impeded unless it impedes the needs of the society. The government shall always weigh the needs of the people against the freedom of the individual. Once in a while, the individual wins but it is rare. As they say, your freedom ends when it hinders mine. And, I was applying that other's definition of socialism which was very vague and could be easily applied to every civilized, just society.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Because she's a woman. Only men have to.

That's correct.

Tangentially, if there was a draft, with the rate of obesity in the US, what would happen when the overweight people are drafted? Would this actually create a waiver type situation or would they be sent to "fat camps" until they reach a certain weight?

I've always wondered. I better reacquaint myself with google.

 

[ChunksJR]

Would I support a draft?

When you guys turn 18, you march done to the gubment and sign that selective service thing, right? Is that your draft card or what-not?

Nice dodge of the question. Answer a ? with a ?. My wife does the same thing.

Being heartless, I guess I could say that I wholly support such a measure since it doesn't impact me.

It does impact you...how do you think you're so free?

But, what you fail to recognize is that I am quite willing and anticipate being part of the military service.

That's good to hear. Actions speak louder than words. Do or do not, there is no try.

I can't fathom how you don't want to provide something so essential and beneficial as health care for those unable to help themselves.

Health Care = nice to have. Nice to have =/= Right to have.

Until the age of adulthood, all children belong to our society;

You try to take my child from me, I'll kill you. Society owns our children?!?!?!?!?!? You can't really believe that!!!!!!! God help us if this ever becomes the standard of our society.

You have the freedom of speech but you are not free to walk into a crowded theater and scream fire.

Yelling Fire infringes on the rights of others...that's why it is a horrible example of "freedom of speech" Speech isn't free if it infringes on individual rights.

You can not commit slander/libel against another without being held accountable.

Not true. Lindsay Lohan and other socialite "elites" are examples of that.

We have laws to protect the people; not just the individual.

Well, if you see the people as individuals, than I agree. Once the individual's rights are infringed, then you must step in : Read gov't/police. Individuals ENGAGE in society for mutual benefit...we don't have to regulate those benefits.

If I prosecute a case and you are the victim, I am prosecuting on behalf of the people and you are secondary, only the story of how the defendant broke the laws governing the people.

And you think I'm full of myself...you're the one claiming to have the "pulse" of your society...That's monarchy.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Yes I support the draft. Go for it. It does not include me- it does not impact me because I won't have a draft number being called. Instead, I'll go volunteer. More succinct for you?

I'm sorry to have to be the one to bear such bad news but it is how our society is run. Our children belong to society. It is called the Parens Patriae doctrine:

[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English COMMON LAW. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

In the United States, the parens patriae doctrine has had its greatest application in the treatment of children, mentally ill persons, and other individuals who are legally incompetent to manage their affairs. The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized.

From Law.com:

parens patriae
(paa-rens pat-tree-eye) n. Latin for "father of his country," the term for the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only "entrusted" to their parents. Under this doctrine, in a divorce action or a guardianship application the court retains jurisdiction until the child is 18 years old, and a judge may change custody, child support or other rulings affecting the child's well-being, no matter what the parents may have agreed or the court previously decided.


Anyway, we do regulate society. Laws and policies were implemented because we, the society, needed them. Food laws, property laws, intellectual property laws, etc. exist because we need them.

Ultimately, I do have plans of making this land my Queendom but in the meanwhile, please explain your last comment because it isn't making sense to me at the moment.

Also, your wife sounds lovely. I think I would like her.

 

[HH-60H]

Because she's a woman. Only men have to.

haha, didn't realize that. Whenever I see the screen name I think of the neighbor in Family Guy.