You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
It didn't use to be silly. A broad reading of Supreme Court cases and Congressional debates from the 1800's would show a much stricter view of federal powers as being the broadly-accepted understanding. CAD's view was at one time the universal view. However, as I already noted above, that theory's been dead for years now, and isn't coming back anytime soon, so it's a moot point.
The reason it's cheaper elsewhere is because other countries don't allow multi-million dollar lawsuits over even the most trivial of malpractice issues.
Reduce the financial liability of our health care and you'll probably see prices drop like a rock.
But dammit this is America where we have the right to become millionaires through the legal system!
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Get bent. You spouted off about deficit and "tax policy" and I correctly called you out on it. Deal with it.
The only thing that is "silly" is how some of you people don't see how the Constitution was set up and why. It was to limit these sorts of gov't controls and take overs. Wrong supposed "precedent" doesn't mean squat when it comes to the Constitution. Again, deal with it.
No you didn't. You're trying to use a silly argument that spending is the cause of deficits instead of tax policy. Your definition could only work if the government could theoretically spend zero dollars, which obviously it cannot. Since spending is a certainty, the question is how the taxation relates to what we are spending in terms of deficits. So once again, please stop.
You are more than welcome to think whatever you want about the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagrees with you and has disagreed with you for decades and decades and decades. I'm sure you think you know better than they do, but you frequently think you know better than people who are much better informed than yourself. This is nothing new.
My understanding of the Constitution squares with the way the country is run, and the ruling of the highest court in the land. I don't have to deal with anything, you do.
There are fewer malpractice lawsuits in most foreign countries, but that isn't THE reason why medical care is so much cheaper there.
But at the same time, if a doctor screws something up that kills or causes considerable harm to a patient, you're damn right they have a right to sue for damages. Everyone always bitches and moans about the legal system until they're the one that's been harmed.
Let's put it this way. The Iraq war is like buying a Hummer. UHC would be like paying for school. Both are expensive, but you don't need the Hummer.
No, your predecessors did it to get out of paying taxes and being controlled by your mother land, Great Briton. The saddest thing is, all that happened is, you became the "new boss"(on the macro)....but isn't that what ben franklin saw in his crystal ball?
Things do change and the rest of the world are amalgamating into grouped currency to stop the financial usury by the likes of the USA and UK. European union will be the next player at the table in my opinion to be finally eclipsed by the Asian dollar(when that happens, this next decade).
You will care when your not so powerful anymore.....................
One doesn't NEED UHC either... nor do we NEED all the existing schools either. Horrible analogy.
Rustler
Golden Member
- Jan 14, 2004
- 1,253
- 1
- 81
promote the general welfare........................
On Aug. 13, 1946, Law 725, known as the "Hill-Burton Act," went into effect, as an amendment to the existing Public Health Service Act. Only nine pages long, the Hill-Burton Act mandated Federal and local cooperation and funding, to achieve the goal of having a community hospital in every county, and to guarantee hospital and related care to all citizens. In rural areas, the mandate was a ratio of 5.5 beds per 1,000 (sparsely settled regions require redundancy); and in urban areas, the ratio was set at 4.5 beds per 1,000. During the initial years, 1946-50, 600 new general hospitals opened, with an average of 40 hospitals added per year through the mid-1960s.
At the same time that this hospital construction boom was providing many of the 3,089 U.S. counties with their first hospital ever, various public-health services and applied medical R&D programs were expanded. Polio and TB were all but eliminated, and other diseases were reduced. By the mid-1970s, the Hill-Burton goal of 4.5 beds per 1,000 was nearly reached as the national average. Amendments to the Hill-Burton Act in 1954 authorized funds for chronic care facilities, and, in 1965, the Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs were begun.
Richard Nixon repealed this in 1973 with the support of Democrats...................
"health maintenance organizations" program?a for-profit, cost-cutting medical intervention, as a foot-in-the-door to replace the existing, workable U.S. public-health and hospital system. Over the next decades, the HMO system has had its intended outcome: undermining U.S. medical infrastructure to the point of today's health-care crisis.
On Aug. 13, 1946, Law 725, known as the "Hill-Burton Act," went into effect, as an amendment to the existing Public Health Service Act. Only nine pages long, the Hill-Burton Act mandated Federal and local cooperation and funding, to achieve the goal of having a community hospital in every county, and to guarantee hospital and related care to all citizens. In rural areas, the mandate was a ratio of 5.5 beds per 1,000 (sparsely settled regions require redundancy); and in urban areas, the ratio was set at 4.5 beds per 1,000. During the initial years, 1946-50, 600 new general hospitals opened, with an average of 40 hospitals added per year through the mid-1960s.
At the same time that this hospital construction boom was providing many of the 3,089 U.S. counties with their first hospital ever, various public-health services and applied medical R&D programs were expanded. Polio and TB were all but eliminated, and other diseases were reduced. By the mid-1970s, the Hill-Burton goal of 4.5 beds per 1,000 was nearly reached as the national average. Amendments to the Hill-Burton Act in 1954 authorized funds for chronic care facilities, and, in 1965, the Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programs were begun.
Richard Nixon repealed this in 1973 with the support of Democrats...................
"health maintenance organizations" program?a for-profit, cost-cutting medical intervention, as a foot-in-the-door to replace the existing, workable U.S. public-health and hospital system. Over the next decades, the HMO system has had its intended outcome: undermining U.S. medical infrastructure to the point of today's health-care crisis.
Evidently you failed at the reading comprehension section. We certainly do not need all the existing schools in this country. The school I graduated from is a money hole. With a graduating class of 70 it also carries the second largest local school tax in the county. I am absolutely all for closing down that school and having its students merge into an area high school that does not have such a high burden per student to the tax payer.
You also did not specify public or private schooling. I am also for public parents paying for public schooling and stop this crap where childless taxpayers are burdened for services that they can never use.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
The people ARE the government, and as I saw the interview, it was clear that this person didn't want to pay for it. He wanted it for nothing.
It just makes logical sense for the state to administer health care.
The misstep in logic for both sides is greed. "not my dollars, i cant afford it" "not my dollars for someone elses care".
My point of view is that UHC would correct a lot of the issues the poor have with health care. Every 1st AND 2nd world nation with the exception of the US has some form of UHC / UHI.
The misstep in logic for both sides is greed. "not my dollars, i cant afford it" "not my dollars for someone elses care".
My point of view is that UHC would correct a lot of the issues the poor have with health care. Every 1st AND 2nd world nation with the exception of the US has some form of UHC / UHI.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
This whole thread is one big FAIL. So much so that someone should find a way to put this entire thing on a fail poster.
You know what it boils down to? WE DON'T KNOW. No one knows what we should do or what is best. There is not one instance of a truly successful UHC program in place in the entire world. There is always some good and some bad. The thing is that a program that works in one part of the world may not work in another part of the world. In some cases, one program may be better in one way but worse in another. This is why there are so many variations around the world. It's because no one has found that perfect solution yet. We don't know yet how to solve this problem. If you say that the US should have a healthcare system just like XXX country, then you're an idiot because:
1. Country XXX does not have a perfect system. So trying to force it on others is not a good idea.
2. The US will be a very different market so what may work in country XXX will not necessarily work in the US.
Anyone who believes that we should take ANY action is stupid unless you are an expert in this field and have spent years researching the problem looking for a solution. I'm sure that no one on these boards fits that criteria.
I admit, I don't have enough information to make an informed decision on this topic. Neither do you. The difference is that I openly admit that I don't know while you are ignorant of the fact that you are ignorant.
You know what it boils down to? WE DON'T KNOW. No one knows what we should do or what is best. There is not one instance of a truly successful UHC program in place in the entire world. There is always some good and some bad. The thing is that a program that works in one part of the world may not work in another part of the world. In some cases, one program may be better in one way but worse in another. This is why there are so many variations around the world. It's because no one has found that perfect solution yet. We don't know yet how to solve this problem. If you say that the US should have a healthcare system just like XXX country, then you're an idiot because:
1. Country XXX does not have a perfect system. So trying to force it on others is not a good idea.
2. The US will be a very different market so what may work in country XXX will not necessarily work in the US.
Anyone who believes that we should take ANY action is stupid unless you are an expert in this field and have spent years researching the problem looking for a solution. I'm sure that no one on these boards fits that criteria.
I admit, I don't have enough information to make an informed decision on this topic. Neither do you. The difference is that I openly admit that I don't know while you are ignorant of the fact that you are ignorant.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter