[Jolie]

[quote=HM2Viking;2392105]I think that the reality is that people will not always choose to do whats best for their health in the long run.


Of course, not everyone will choose to do what is best for their health. But as private citizens of the USA where we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we don't have to do what is best. It is also ridiculous to assume that the government will do a better job than individuals of choosing what is best. No, thank you. I'll make my own decisions regarding my healthcare.

[HM2Viking]

I don't really think that anyone is arguing for mandatory preventive care. (I know that I haven't.) The point of the Donne quote was to point out the interconnectedness of how individual decisions impact the overall society. The argument for single payer is simply this: Make preventive care services the focus of our health care system. Single payer advocates are not saying "go to the doctor" at peril of sanction. It is a matter of ensuring that individuals can make the choice to take care of their health by availing themselves of preventive care.

The squawking about the US government is meaningless because the Government is us after all.

[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

The squawking about the US government is meaningless because the Government is us after all.

Not necessarily.

I, for one, did not choose the current government, nor did some 49 million other Americans. Therefore, it does not represent "us".

JMHO.

[zooz]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I don't really think that anyone is arguing for mandatory preventive care. (I know that I haven't.)

I didn't say, and didn't mean to imply, that anyone here was arguing for (as in, "in favor of") mandatory preventative care.

The argument for mandatory preventative care--such as the man who be may the next president is making--stems from the fact that if someone else is going to handle the costs for your health care, they then have an excuse to have control over things that will affect your health. It is a logical result.

The point of the Donne quote was to point out the interconnectedness of how individual decisions impact the overall society.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Part of the point of my response was that Donne, for all his "all for one, one for all" speech, seemed like an utter hypocrite to me.

The other point was that if someone else is, in effect, paying for your life, you no longer own your life.

The argument for single payer is simply this: Make preventive care services the focus of our health care system. Single payer advocates are not saying "go to the doctor" at peril of sanction. It is a matter of ensuring that individuals can make the choice to take care of their health by availing themselves of preventive care.

Rest assured, I understand that most advocates for single payer aren't for mandatory preventive care. But if single payer does become the system, who's to say the entity (which is most likely to be the government) won't implement mandatory preventative care, if not at the onset, then somewhere down the line?

The squawking about the US government is meaningless because the Government is us after all.

Squawking? I'll keep "squawking" as long as the government exists in its current form. It has been nowhere near being "us" for a long time.

[HM2Viking]

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.
The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...lthcare_system

[HM2Viking]

[zooz]

(Emphasis mine.)

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.
The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...lthcare_system

From my understanding, the UK Dept. of health puts limits on what services health care providers can offer patients that use the NHS. Therefore, medical decisions are not left up to the sole discretion of patient and doctor, but are a result of what the government allows the doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to do. The reason for the limits is based on the budget that was allocated for the system.

What it sounds like from reading the quote above, is that doctors will get to make a decision only after numerous options have already been weeded out by "the body." Are we forgetting that it is doctors who practice medicine? Shouldn't it be their decision to use whatever treatment that will provide the best outcome for the patient?

People don't want to be taxed to death, but they also want the best care and the most treatment options available. It is impossible to have it both ways, which is why a government/tax funded health care system will--in my opinion--never work.

Our health care system obviously needs some major revisions, but I think a better solution would be to get the government out of it than allow the government to gain more control over it.

Not to mention the fact that health care is not, by definition, a right. People have the right to seek what health care they need, but they don't have the right to have it provided for them through taxes.

Because of a need to control cost escalation, the state might decide to impose controls on the introduction of or access to new technologies or to institute other measures to constrain utilization. These could result in consumers having less freedom to consume the kinds of medical resources they might otherwise choose.

Source: http://www.chcf.org/topics/healthins...l=single_payer

[HM2Viking]

except that in every other major industrialized country in the world has built some form of a tax funded health care system. These systems deliver better results at lower costs than our horribly inefficient system. Since your motto means "Dare to know" I would think that you would be open minded enough to really look at how to make our system work better. At least in a universal system our health care system would be transparent both in cost and design.

But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be.

The other point is that in the universal system there are actually more primary care physicians, nurses, imaging equipment and hospital beds per capita than in the US.

[zooz]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

except that in every other major industrialized country in the world has built some form of a tax funded health care system.

So, it basically boils down to "monkey see, monkey do?"

These systems deliver better results at lower costs than our horribly inefficient system.

That very well may be true, and I agree that health care is inefficient as it stands today, but I'm not about to give up the control of my health and health care just so the system is easier.

Health is a personal responsibility. No one has a right to health care that others must pay for, no more than someone has a right to come into a restaurant and force others to pay for his or her meal because he or she is hungry.

Since your motto means "Dare to know" I would think that you would be open minded enough to really look at how to make our system work better.

And I think you should reconsider your suggestion that I am somehow close minded because we happen to not see things in the same light. For the record, I explore and research all the options that I can before I place my faith in any one ideology.

I don't assume you are close minded because your opinion is not the same as mine. I would think that you could show me that same objectivity.

Also, I explained how I think the "system" could work better, but I didn't go into specifics because this thread has already veered off course.

(And, yes, I do "Dare to Know;" I dare to think for myself.)

At least in a universal system our health care system would be transparent both in cost and design.

So I've been told. Is the supposed transparency worth the lack of control over one's health and life?

The other point is that in the universal system there are actually more primary care physicians, nurses, imaging equipment and hospital beds per capita than in the US.

More primary care physicians, nurses, imaging equipment, and hospital beds in exchange for less choices that my doctor and I get to make? No thanks.


Maybe I should just let Barry Goldwater do the talking for me?

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

[Spidey's mom]

zooz - so many things in your post are worthy of quoting but one stood out for me.

"Health is a personal responsibility. No one has a right to health care that others must pay for, no more than someone has a right to come into a restaurant and force others to pay for his or her meal because he or she is hungry."


NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE THAT OTHERS MUST PAY FOR . . .

steph