Healthcare town hall battles

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,489
Reaction score
2
The point is that you don't know what you are talking about.
Yeah, I don't know shit about universal health care, despite living in a country with one of the most comprehensive systems in the world.

Do even have a job? Your like what 18?
Full-time job? No. I fail to see what relevance that has to understanding basic concepts. Like this
, a study from the UN that shows that America has the lowest life expectancy of the western nations.

It's one thing when you participate in a discussion and another when someone that doesn't have a job,doesn't pay rent and most of all does not comprehend how wasteful our Government is.
Drop the ****ing patronizing act, I doubt your any older than me, and by the way, I live in a country ruled by Gordon Brown, I know exactly how shit governments can be.

Yes Universal Health care is a good idea if done right...The American Government is not able manage this feet though (IMO) because our nation is already beyond broke health care reform the way the Dems want it would dig us an even deeper hole.
It's funny how every other western nation manages.
 

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,758
Reaction score
132
I found this blog entry and I have one thing to ask... WHY THE **** CAN'T ALL CHRISTIANS FEEL THIS WAY? That's the type of stuff I admire in Christianity, but instead I get all these idiots instead who would mock and attack Jesus for not giving preferential treatment to Jairus's daughter and his hippy views.

http://wildernesspreacher.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-would-jesus-do-about-health-care.html

One of the vocations for which Jesus is best known is being a healer. The Gospels narrate stories in which he makes the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk. He heals some of dreaded diseases and he raises others from the dead. Yet, the healing narrative in Mark 5:21-43 strikes me as particularly interesting in the way it is told and for its implications for how we envision health care reform in this country.

In the hands of the author, the two stories of healing that we find in Mark 5:21-43 have become intertwined into one story. The story of Jairus, the Synagogue leader, and his very ill daughter brackets the story of an unknown woman who has been hemorrhaging for twelve years. Both stories involve females in need of healing. The number12 is important in both. Jesus’ touch plays a key role in each healing. And the theme of faith is vital to what takes place in each episode. The literary structure and details not only forces us to read the stories as one story, but leads us to see one story as having meaning for the other.

Yet, when we read the stories as one, we also come away with the idea that the two individuals that come to Jesus could not be more different. Jairus, whose name we know, is a male. The woman, who remains nameless, is a female. Jairus is a leader in the Synagogue, a man of great religious and political stature and influence. The unnamed woman is an outcast, who has been shunned by her community because of her disease. Jairus can come to Jesus expecting to seek healing for his daughter. The woman is disregarded by the crowd as she approaches Jesus from behind.

Perhaps one of the reasons these two stories are linked together is so that readers can face the reality that in our human existence all of us are vulnerable to sickness and death. Sickness and death are universal, and they have neither respect for people of importance nor sympathy for those who are poor. At some point in life everybody suffers pain and sickness, and therefore, at some point in our lives we will all seek healing.

The problem, however, is that many who seek healing will never receive the care and treatment they need because they cannot afford health care coverage. In our wealthy and technologically advanced country, millions of people will not receive the health care they need because they cannot pay for such care. Tens of thousands die each year for lack of health care, and thousands of others suffer in pain and sickness because they cannot meet the expense of medical care and treatment.

Politicians have debated this issue for some time now, and currently there are plans being put forth to reform our health care system and make quality care affordable for all. Yet, there are still those who argue that our health care system should remain as it is, market driven. There are still those who think that the free market is the best solution to our health care problem, for in their minds competition will produce an industry that will be beneficial to all. The discussions have been reduced to political and economic debates that treat those who need health care coverage as mere numbers.

Yet, the issue of providing health care to those who do not have access to such care because of the exorbitant costs is not a political or economic issue; it is a moral issue that calls us to re-envision how we see life and human dignity.

In a market driven system of health care, the unnamed woman would have perhaps gone untreated, but Jairus would have had the health care he needed for his daughter. After all, Jairus is a man of means. But the woman has no money left. Jesus, however, saw things differently. Jesus valued all human life as sacred to God, and he extended healing and wholeness to both the woman and Jairus’ daughter.

But in stopping to heal the unnamed woman instead of proceeding straightaway to Jairus’ house uninterrupted, Jesus also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status, and money. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering, and thus he desired to heal both the woman and Jairus’ daughter. But he also knew the prejudices of societies that do not nurture and heal their most vulnerable members, and he stopped to affirm the value of someone who others perceived as an insignificant poor woman.

The test of faithfulness to Jesus is always in how we treat the vulnerable of society. If we are to bear authentic witness to Jesus as the healer, and to God as the giver of life, then we must embrace the value and dignity of all human beings, but especially the vulnerable of our world. In our American society, perhaps there is no greater population that is more vulnerable than those who do not have access to good and affordable health care.

It is time that Christians, and indeed people of all faiths, seriously consider this issue beyond the political battles and number crunching, to see the moral imperative of developing a system that offers to all the basic human right to quality and affordable health care.
Jesus Christ.

More Christians need to take this stance on health care, and do what Jesus would do instead of deluding themselves thinking this isn't the approach he would take. And yes, Christians are without a doubt the biggest demographic who opposes health care reform.

One would think Christians are always at the forefront of doing good in the world, at least lending their support behind it... but it's rarely the case.

As Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians."
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
i think everyone is pissed off because we transitioned from a conservative cowboy to a liberal black..

obama is in some ways more "conservative" than Canada's conservative party. they're only really "liberal" by american standards.,. the perception that the democrats are "liberal" is certainly there; moreso as a label that people can rally around. so the democrats become as synonomous with "liberal" as say the green party is even though they are miles apart in terms of ideology. "liberal" is used in a deragatory sense and it's not really that accurate a label. what we have here is blind partisanism; people have been so conditioned to see the other side as the face of evil that they actually believe it. you can see it here with some of the answers our american conservative members provide; half truths and outright falsehoods




raziaar said:
I found this blog entry and I have one thing to ask... WHY THE **** CAN'T ALL CHRISTIANS FEEL THIS WAY? <snip>
I'll admit I got as far as this part:

" One of the vocations for which Jesus.. "

rolled my eyes and couldnt continue. I know he's talking sense but I'm just so sick of everything jesus that I just cant take anyone who believes in magical sky wizards seriously. I'll try again later today
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
To be fair if you just consider Jesus as a philosopher rather than a zombie-demigod-sorceror his teachings are pretty good.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
sure if you grew up on a deserted island and had no exposure to basic morality

"rich people cant pass through the eye of camels" etc etc BOOORING


I attended a catholic high school. took theology in final year so I'm well aware of his teachings. it's just that it's just become so ludicrously overused and most often than not it's some perversion of his teachings. jesus would probably have been a peace and love hippy, smoking fatheads before preaching to the masses. instead he's a symbol for everything he's not: intolerance, pig headedness etc etc ...so I'm more against jesus the symbol rather than jesus the man

so this:




instead of this:

 

Sparta

Newbie
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
6,312
Reaction score
0
I attended a catholic high school. took theology in final year so I'm well aware of his teachings. it's just that it's just become so ludicrously overused and most often than not it's some perversion of his teachings. jesus would probably have been a peace and love hippy, smoking fatheads before preaching to the masses. instead he's a symbol for everything he's not: intolerance, pig headedness etc etc ...so I'm more against jesus the symbol rather than jesus the man
I spoilered this image because it's pretty big, but you will definitely like it.

 

Tyguy

Space Core
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
11
let thee who is without sin, cast the first check
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Telling someone that part of their argument is dodgy does not outright invalidate their whole argument (one part does not comprise the whole) and allow you to claim sweet, preening victory.
If the basic concepts which underlie every single point of discussion are fundamentally misunderstood, then how can a valid argument ever be arrived at?

Also (and I mean this entirely seriously and without intent to flame/bait/etc.) I presume you're on a course of medication for epilepsy? I also have epilepsy and am on lamotrigine and have been for about seven years now. Working out a rough estimate, based on my dosage and the cost stated here, it works out to a cost of over £18,500. This cost was not paid by myself, nor my parents, nor any insurance company, but by the NHS. It hasn't cost me a penny, nor should it have.
Yes, I take Levetiracetam. I was on Lamotrigine some years ago but it just made my nose run constantly. Soooooooooo annoying.

Don't you think that being encumbered with such a cost for a product which keeps you conscious would be monstrously unfair? It's not as if you or I are responsible for our condition and such medication is a necessity in allowing us to carry on with our lives as normal as possible.
Of course it's unfair. That the government is there to make life fairer is quite an assumption.

Now I'm not sure how it would work in the States. Presumably health insurance companies would take at least some of the cost, but what if you haven't got it? I know there's the Medicare system in place but I'm not sure whether or to what extent you or I would qualify.
I don't know what would happen either, but I really can't see that it would come down to just not getting the medication. Contrary to popular myth, they don't just leave you to die if you don't have health insurance. You might have some serious financial problems after the operation, but that's besides the point.

The US Declaration of Independence holds "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as "unalienable Rights" and I would consider the ability to stay conscious as pretty important to those things, which would qualify the means to stay conscious (in the unfortunate circumstances that one is not entirely in control of such a basic bodily function) as an "unalienable Right," surely?
I would have thought, therefore, that such a cost in that (or a similar) situation is the responsibility of a government which is founded on such principles, ie: the US government.
How can access to vast sums of other people's money be considered an inalienable right? That directly contradicts the "liberty" part. Nothing which has a cost attached can be considered an inalienable right as it takes away from somebody else - those are things like the right to self-determination, property rights, freedom of religion etc.

It doesn't work as a principle because, if nothing else, universal healthcare is a luxury which only rich countries can afford. And even we cannot afford it in the true sense - many treatments are not available because they are not considered cost-effective, including life-saving or life-extending ones.

You're thinking of entitlements, granted by government. Something entirely different.

Now of course I'm using the example of epilepsy and anticonvulsants because it's one I (and you) have experience with but of course it can be applied to a wide range of conditions and illnesses.
I find it a barbaric notion to say that one's quality of life or even survival should be, at least in part if not wholly, determined by one's income, the willingness of one's employers to support its workers (ie: the monetary value it puts upon its staff's well-being) or whether one is part of the (as I'm understand it) very slim portion of the population which qualifies for Medicare.
So do I.

It doesn't change the fact that while universal healthcare is a good thing for a country that can afford it to have, it doesn't work as a universal principle, to be considered a "right". We trade the health of our economy for services - if our economy suffered enough, we would no longer be able to afford the NHS.

Try giving China universal healthcare and see what happens to their economic miracle then.

I'm grateful for the treatment I receive on the NHS. I'm also quite aware that there is not enough money in the world to go around to treat everyone in the world for everything that's wrong with them. We're just lucky. In a way, it's a bit like employment - large corporations (and the public sector) can afford to carry people who aren't performing. Small businesses cannot. As a society, we carry a huge amount of dead weight who take out more than they put in. Past a certain point, this becomes unsustainable.

If we were hunter-gatherers still, you and I would have to sacrifice ourselves because the burden we put on the group would be far too great. Naturally, this works as a sliding scale that we are at the opposite end of. For plenty of developing countries, treating poor people with conditions like ours through the use of ultra-expensive drugs is pure fantasy.

Moreover, I'm quite mindful of the fact that if I were rich and well-connected, my mum may have been able to beat her cancer. The type she had is all but untreatable in the mainstream, but it's surprising what certain knowledgeable people with money in the States have been able to do to cure themselves. I spoke to a professor in California who had survived the same supposedly unsurvivable illness and written a book about it, and he recommended various things for us to try. But there was no way in hell we would ever be able to afford any of them - the NHS isn't interested in funding experimental treatments.

It's certainly not a cure-all.
 

lord_raken

Tank
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
2
Let me say this. I don't trust my government, events of the past have lead me to believe that in order to keep our liberties the people must watch the government like a hawk. We must read the bills they try to pass (the important parts... there is no way I'm reading a 2000 pg document of filler), know every political move our politicians make, know our rights and the principles of good government and if our politicians should step out of line we should jump on them immediately. Sadly I don't think the American people are stepping up to that responsibility. If I though they were I would not be as apprehensive about Nationalized heath care. Who knows... It might work. It might get the private companies to lower their prices and work more efficiently, it could give decent care to just about everyone. But as it is I don't trust the American people to make sure our government does not abuse the power we give them.... I wish I could be more optimistic but the events of the past have left me increasingly weary.

Plus... I don't like taxes.

@ RepiV: That is a good point. In order for the NHCS to work it needs to be careful with its funds... This means that it cannot afford to try expensive and experimental treatments for illnesses like cancer. Where as in our current system, in the US experimenting leads to new products and equipment and therefor profits... so the desire for wealth boosts the desire to find cures and explore new options. Competition and money are great motivators of progress, that is a fact. Our problem here in the U.S is that the quest profits become more important to the Rx companies that helping people by finding a cure cure. It should be the other way around, but its not and it is a problem.
 

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,080
Reaction score
916
actually.... I think it is YOU, my good sir, who needs some lessons in current events, casual debate, political theory/history, and a nice big dose of common courtesy. You are not being very mature, and in desperate need of some manners. (you and about five others on this thread)

Try to keep is polite... please.
Yes ma'am. I sure done did a baaaaad thing.
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
I think a problem with repriV's thinking is he refuses to accept Marxist economic principles. I'm not holding this against him, I just think Marx shown that a person can only get rich through the surplus value of another persons labour. This means a Marxist believes that the rich person does not have a 'pure' right to that money as they gained it though the direct exploitation of others.

This is why we believe taxation to be completely fair and reasonable. It is no more 'stealing' than it is to have a man work on your machies (or tools of production) and make produce for you that is worth £100 and then to only pay that man £5.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
I think a problem with repriV's thinking is he refuses to accept Marxist economic principles. I'm not holding this against him, I just think Marx shown that a person can only get rich through the surplus value of another persons labour.
This is false for a start, as in these modern times there are plenty of one- or two-man businesses which make a lot of money.

This means a Marxist believes that the rich person does not have a 'pure' right to that money as they gained it though the direct exploitation of others.
What leap of faith did you arrive at to class work as exploitation?

Would you prefer that business owners everywhere suddenly decided to stop "exploiting" people and leave you without a job?

This is why we believe taxation to be completely fair and reasonable. It is no more 'stealing' than it is to have a man work on your machies (or tools of production) and make produce for you that is worth £100 and then to only pay that man £5.
Employing someone to do work for an agreed sum is not stealing, by ANY definition or stretch of the imagination.
 

Saturos

Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
1
sure if you grew up on a deserted island and had no exposure to basic morality

"rich people cant pass through the eye of camels" etc etc BOOORING


I attended a catholic high school. took theology in final year so I'm well aware of his teachings. it's just that it's just become so ludicrously overused and most often than not it's some perversion of his teachings. jesus would probably have been a peace and love hippy, smoking fatheads before preaching to the masses. instead he's a symbol for everything he's not: intolerance, pig headedness etc etc ...so I'm more against jesus the symbol rather than jesus the man

so this:




instead of this:

Are those both interpretation images of Jesus? TBH, I kind of like the more laid back Jesus myself, (the one with the green eyes). Both for the same reason you prefer and because my eyes are green. :D (or is that brown? I'm a bit colourblind)
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
Since when did Solaris swing back to Marxism from being a doctrinaire liberal?

This is false for a start, as in these modern times there are plenty of one- or two-man businesses which make a lot of money.
...
What leap of faith did you arrive at to class work as exploitation?
..
Would you prefer that business owners everywhere suddenly decided to stop "exploiting" people and leave you without a job?
...Employing someone to do work for an agreed sum is not stealing, by ANY definition or stretch of the imagination.
I'm sure it's possible to make money without exploiting someone. But then again, there's a whole area of marxist doctrine that deals with the disconnection of labour and its consequences. It's possible those two-man businesses wouldn't be able to do their work without someone dying somewhere, just as we all indirectly contribute to quite a lot of shitty things.

The main thing about your argument is more that it seems to assume that being taxed is a greater imposition on a person's liberty than being unable to remain conscious. Insofar as a government promises the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it does have the function of making life "fairer", ie giving people the same opportunities. That's never going to be possible to the ultimate degree because of the great power (opportunity) that money or personal connections confer. But if it's possible to do so then at the very least the nationstate can try to perform its stated function and give everyone the opportunity not to a) suffer ill-health or b) spend great amounts of money and stress on not suffering ill-health.

But I thought we'd been through all this? I thought you agreed that the only relevant issue is whether a public health service really would provide better and more efficient healthcare to more people?
 

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,489
Reaction score
2
Are those both interpretation images of Jesus? TBH, I kind of like the more laid back Jesus myself, (the one with the green eyes). Both for the same reason you prefer and because my eyes are green. :D (or is that brown? I'm a bit colourblind)
Nah dude, the black one is what Jesus would actually have looked like, while the white creepy looking one is the western interpretation.
 

Saturos

Newbie
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
1
Nah dude, the black one is what Jesus would actually have looked like, while the white creepy looking one is the western interpretation.
The bottom one reminds me of Final Fantasy cover art. (FF VI or FF IV can't remember which, but the general art style is sort of similar.)
 

Solaris

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
10,323
Reaction score
4
This is false for a start, as in these modern times there are plenty of one- or two-man businesses which make a lot of money.
Which produce something of value and then sell it for more than it cost them, this gives them a responcability to society as without it, they would make no money


What leap of faith did you arrive at to class work as exploitation?

Would you prefer that business owners everywhere suddenly decided to stop "exploiting" people and leave you without a job?
No, see this is what I meant. You've no grasp of Marxism, again I'm not holding that against you. Just 'exploit' isn't a negative word in that context, it just describes how others (bourgeoisie) make money off other peoples (proletariat) labour.

Whilst this is fair, it does create some responcabilities for the profiteers to the workers.
 

repiV

Tank
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,283
Reaction score
2
Since when did Solaris swing back to Marxism from being a doctrinaire liberal?
I was wondering that...

I'm sure it's possible to make money without exploiting someone. But then again, there's a whole area of marxist doctrine that deals with the disconnection of labour and its consequences. It's possible those two-man businesses wouldn't be able to do their work without someone dying somewhere, just as we all indirectly contribute to quite a lot of shitty things.
I don't really understand what you're getting at here?

The main thing about your argument is more that it seems to assume that being taxed is a greater imposition on a person's liberty than being unable to remain conscious.
Being seriously ill is clearly a worse state of affairs than being taxed. The difference is that taxation is an imposition from one person unto another, whereas being in bad health is not. Freedom in the libertarian sense is freedom from other people, not freedom from external consequences.

And then there is the point that if you had the foresight to get health insurance in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about these things anyway. How many of these people who "can't afford" health insurance actually just think the risk of not having it is worth the reward in their wallet?

I remember when I got my first permanent job, £15.5k a year but no outgoings. I thought I was poor. Hah! I've never since been anywhere near as well off as I was at that time, despite earning considerably more. It's amazing what you can afford when you have to. Given how extortionate the cost of living is in this country, I can't imagine that I would be any worse off in America also paying health insurance.

Hong Kong has no public healthcare either, but the majority of the population pay virtually no tax, and the highest income tax band is 11%. Salaries are similar to London. Much wealthier, same result - even with the cost of health insurance.

Insofar as a government promises the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", it does have the function of making life "fairer", ie giving people the same opportunities. That's never going to be possible to the ultimate degree because of the great power (opportunity) that money or personal connections confer. But if it's possible to do so then at the very least the nationstate can try to perform its stated function and give everyone the opportunity not to a) suffer ill-health or b) spend great amounts of money and stress on not suffering ill-health.
To me, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means that the government should just GTFO and stop meddling in my life. It's to allow opportunities, not to provide them.

But I thought we'd been through all this? I thought you agreed that the only relevant issue is whether a public health service really would provide better and more efficient healthcare to more people?
The issue is not that I think public healthcare is a bad thing (although I'm sure publicly funded, yet privately managed and independently regulated healthcare would be far superior). It's that it should not and cannot be considered a fundamental "right".

Which produce something of value and then sell it for more than it cost them, this gives them a responcability to society as without it, they would make no money
That makes no more sense than saying that consumers have a responsibility to businesses because without them, they wouldn't have goods and services.

No, see this is what I meant. You've no grasp of Marxism, again I'm not holding that against you. Just 'exploit' isn't a negative word in that context, it just describes how others (bourgeoisie) make money off other peoples (proletariat) labour.
Political philosophy doesn't allow you to rewrite the English language. "Exploitation" means just that, if you don't mean it then don't use the term.

Whilst this is fair, it does create some responcabilities for the profiteers to the workers.
Like what?
 

Eejit

The Freeman
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,514
Reaction score
216
Political philosophy doesn't allow you to rewrite the English language. "Exploitation" means just that, if you don't mean it then don't use the term.
To be fair Marxist texts are translated from the original language. Sometimes one has to use the closest term if there is no exact one when translating.
 
Top