The Pending Doom of Obamacare

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Just a couple of points: You're right - The bailouts were not indicative of a free market. They were indicative of socialist ideals, and rather stupid ones at that. Bailing out companies that make poor decisions when they do make poor decisions, but letting them keep profits when they don't, means that stupid decisions will continue to be made by the company.

Both Democrat and Republican politicians including The Decider waxed hysterical about what pandemoneum would ensue if we didn't bail out the banks. After TARP, the bailout of the auto giants was only logical. The argument for these bailouts attempted to paint a dire situation that didn't exist. "To big to fail" means that banks, companies, etc have grown to such a size that even if they were to fail, investors are standing by to buy up the assets and rehabilitate them. Several investors were ready to buy GM and Chrysler but loss interest as soon as it became clear that they would be bailed out. Chevrolet makes good vehicles that Americans love and will continue to buy, even if the ownership changes. That's what "too big to fail" means in the free market. As we see, it means something else entirely to the government.

[FunkyTown]

Ahem...

In the interests of fair play, Dash, I did some research in to the Institute of Medicine.

They fall under the National Academy of Sciences as a subset of that group.

According to Sourcewatch, the NAS has been questioned for its independence as 1/5 members of panels headed up by the NAS had direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with direct stakes in the outcome of the study:

National Academy of Sciences - SourceWatch

As one who believes in Universal Health Care, I should point out that the only reason for me to post this is because I believe in getting to the truth.

However, I should point out that your source pushing for government interventionism would mean quite a lot in the pockets of medical groups. Since the NAS has been questioned on this very thing, it might be best not to use it as a source.

[Guest]

Arguably it is. Of course (by the same argument) so are police departments. Generally folks debate over how much socialism is acceptable (baring hard core libertarians).

And that's the crux of the matter.

When we discuss Universal Healthcare, someone will always pipe in with - but, you're okay with police departments and fire departments, why not health departments?

It all boils down to the level of control you allow an external entity over how you live your lives. I am okay with Police Departments because there is a set of laws that we live by that is policed. So that, I am ok with a law that says - "It is a crime to murder and steal".

I am also okay with a Fire Department because I am ok with a law that says - "It is a crime to have a bonfire in your backyard".

I am not okay with a Health Department because I am not ok with a law that says - "It is a crime to have a BMI outside of the average range".

[prophetofdoom]

One of the big problems I see with socialized medicine is the allocation of resources. When something is perceived to be "free" (even though it is payed by tax payers, the perception is there) people tend to overburden the health care system with trivial issues... demand starts to eclipse supply and then health care prices go up, people get put on waiting lists, and healthcare systems go bankrupt.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

One of the big problems I see with socialized medicine is the allocation of resources. When something is perceived to be "free" (even though it is payed by tax payers, the perception is there) people tend to overburden the health care system with trivial issues... demand starts to eclipse supply and then health care prices go up, people get put on waiting lists, and healthcare systems go bankrupt.

I agree with everything except the last statement. Using the model of the UK, Canada, and other socialized medicine countries, the system never goes bankrupt, they simply raise taxes and decrease benefits to compensate.

[dash77]

Funky town:

You are exemplfying the very think I am suggesting.

Your sourcewatch source regarding the concerning aspects of the Institute of Medicine is not an academic source. Find me an academic source that questions the Intitute of Medicine. You are replying on a polical source to provide a political concern. And while you are at it, please try to find concerns with the first study and journal (Open Medecine Journal)

[prophetofdoom]

I agree with everything except the last statement. Using the model of the UK, Canada, and other socialized medicine countries, the system never goes bankrupt, they simply raise taxes and decrease benefits to compensate.

Yes, the system never really goes bankrupt (I was using the term figuratively) but taxes continue to skyrocket and care goes down. If the government takes on too many liabilities it could default on their debts though.

[dash77]

So, what is a more Christ-like value: Paying more in taxes (in the most riches nations – US., Canada, Britain, etc. – where by global standards we are filthy rich) or letting people literally die so that corporations can gain millions?

[Dravin]

So, what is a more Christ-like value: Paying more in taxes (in the most riches nations – US., Canada, Britain, etc. – where by global standards we are filthy rich) or letting people literally die so that corporations can gain millions?

Oooh! I can play that game!

What is more Christ-like:

Stealing money from hard working people and giving them a false sense of charity so they absolve themselves of actually interacting and succouring the poor? Or letting people decide to help the poor on a personal and direct level (thus developing charity) with resources that haven't been stolen to feed a massive impersonal program?

It's Falseman, the combination of a false dichotomy and a straw man! I wasn't aware anyone turned on his signal though. Discussion pretty much stalls (that's true of which side turns on the signal) when Falseman enters the picture, he's more a super villain than a super hero.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

It's Falseman, the combination of a false dichotomy and a straw man! I wasn't aware anyone turned on his signal though. Discussion pretty much stalls (that's true of which side turns on the signal) when Falseman enters the picture, he's more a super villain than a super hero.

Definitely Super Villain - it's how religious wars get started. Because, people seem to think it is okay to say, "You better do what I tell you to do, because God says so!".

[dash77]

Dravin:

It is not a straw man fallacy –there is no attacking of untrue events. The statistics I am giving are from top notch research articles and agencies. 18,000 deaths are attributed to people not having health care insurance in the United States. These are real people that suffer and die. Research from top notch academic journals – not Wikipedia sources, clearly outline that the Canadian social government model to health care is superior to the American profit market model.

So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care if, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit. The charity model you are suggesting, Darvin, is causing 18,000 people to die each year.

There is nothing straw-man about this – these are two health care approaches that exist in real world settings. Which is more Christ-like?

[Guest]

Dash77:

Which is more Christ-like:

1.) Paul is sick. So, he goes to the police and asks them to go to Peter's house, put a gun to his head and take his money for taxes. Peter has no choice - he has to pay $5,000 or lose his house. The police then, gives $5,000 of Peter's money to Paul. Paul buys medicine and he lives 50 more years.

2.) Paul is sick, he has no money. So he goes to Peter and asks him for money. Peter gives him $500 bucks that is all that he can afford to spare for charity. Paul dies the next day.

So, which scenario, 1 or 2 is Peter more Christ-like. And more importantly, dash77, which scenario, 1 or 2 is Paul more Christ-like.

[Dravin]

It is not a straw man fallacy

Fine, quote the person(s) in this thread who has stated that their position is "to let people die so that corporations can gain millions."

Edited February 8, 2011 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

1) If the quote you gave says that there didn't appear to be much difference between Canadian and American health care, arguing that publicly funded health care will result in worse service seems to be a bit of a red herring.

Only if all other things are equal, which isn't necessarily the case.

2) Research doesn't stop because the government puts funding towards things. In the UK with the NHS, medical research is showing some exciting strides. In particular, the ability to regrow organs ruined by disease. If this doesn't excite you about the medical system, then I don't know what will. New heart when you're old with no rejection? Yes, please.

Gene find will help us to regrow limbs | UK news | The Observer

Not to get all jingoistic on you, but the article you cite only names American researchers. I wouldn't presume to claim that all good medical developments come from the US, and no doubt a government throwing money at nything will get you some results. But (and again, this is going to sound jingoistic/nationalistic) there are people who would argue that the entire world benefits from a massive amount of American (profit-driven) research and development. Like you, I'd love to see some hard numbers on this. Until then, we can only draw on our comparative experience with government bureaucracy versus a truly competitive bureaucracy.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is my second example of uneducated predetermined thoughts. Just-a-guy has taken a very small section of the article I provided and has completely mininsterpeted it (see post # 53).

Thanks for noting my post number. In fact, here's a link to it. I want everyone to look at it and realize that all I did was provide a direct quote from the article (with, of course, bolding for emphasis). I'm sorry you think direct quotes are tantamount to uneducated misinterpretations.

Anyone that knows anything about research knows that the abstract summaries the key findings and below is the abstract form the article, note the final interpretation. Government health care in Canada is a little better than American health care. It’s a better system that has a little better health care outcomes that makes no profit off of other people and covers EVERYONE – no one dies when they do not have health insurance. No one has to mortgage there homes to survive and it’s more effective system!!!

My goodness, Dash. The article--not just the abstract, but the article proper--didn't have a single reference to the words "mortgage" or "house", and the only reference to "home" was a navigational link to the main page.

"Results: We identified 38 studies comparing populations of patients in Canada and the United States. Studies addressed diverse problems, including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies that included extensive statistical adjustment and enrolled broad populations, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 showed equivalent or mixed results. Of 28 studies that failed one of these criteria, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada (relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.92-0.98, p= 0.002) but were very heterogeneous, and we failed to find convincing explanations for this heterogeneity. The only condition in which results consistently favoured one country was end-stage renal disease, in which Canadian patients fared better.

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent."

Accurate interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent and we cannot explain the inconsistency.

That omission is kind of a big deal.

Funky town:

You are exemplfying the very think I am suggesting.

Your sourcewatch source regarding the concerning aspects of the Institute of Medicine is not an academic source. Find me an academic source that questions the Intitute of Medicine. You are replying on a polical source to provide a political concern. And while you are at it, please try to find concerns with the first study and journal (Open Medecine Journal)

Wait--so only academics are allowed to point out the bias of other academics, and in the absence of such criticism we're supposed to shut off our brains and leave the thinking to people we know will make money if we let them have their way?

Something about foxes and henhouses comes to mind . . .

The charity model you are suggesting, Darvin, is causing 18,000 people to die each year.

Automobiles kill twice that amount annually.

So, any nation that tolerates the use of automobiles is un-Christlike, yes?

Edited February 8, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Funky town:

You are exemplfying the very think I am suggesting.

Your sourcewatch source regarding the concerning aspects of the Institute of Medicine is not an academic source. Find me an academic source that questions the Intitute of Medicine. You are replying on a polical source to provide a political concern. And while you are at it, please try to find concerns with the first study and journal (Open Medecine Journal)

Dash? Right now, you're probably feeling like you're being slammed from all sides as everyone argues with you. I apologize if that's the case.

I should point out, however, that understanding research bias is vital to having educated understanding on their results. In the 1950s and 60s, there were respected medical journals still arguing the benefits of smoking. Most of these studies were commissioned by the tobacco industry.

Sourcewatch is not a conservative nor liberally biased political site. It is a site dedicated to the study of specific biases. It makes no judgment on the content of studies - Only on the independence of those who make them, or who enter in to the political arena.

EDIT: I'm removing the study. It requires a paid subscription and I'm unwilling to drop $31.50 to win an internet argument and I can't in good conscience quote a study I haven't fully read.

Edited February 8, 2011 by FunkyTown

[Saldrin]

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

-Thomas Paine

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

--George Washington

[dash77]

I am still waiting for an answer to this question:

So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who are living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care of, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit.

I see a lot of side stepping, irrevant quotes, and the misuse of logic fallcies. Again, these are two very real health care approaches, which is more Christ-like?

[Guest]

I am still waiting for an answer to this question:

So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who are living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care of, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit.

I see a lot of side stepping, irrevant quotes, and the misuse of logic fallcies. Again, these are two very real health care approaches, which is more Christ-like?

I answered your question with a question dash. You ignored it.

[prophetofdoom]

I am still waiting for an answer to this question:

So, what is more Christ-like? Having a real system like Canada where people pay more in taxes for health care (people who are living in one of the most riches countries in the world) that has superior health care where everyone is taken care of, or a system like the United States where 20% of the population is not covered, 18,000 people die due to this, and insurance agencies make millions of dollars in profit.

I see a lot of side stepping, irrevant quotes, and the misuse of logic fallcies. Again, these are two very real health care approaches, which is more Christ-like?

Would it be Christ-like for someone to walk up to you, while you are eating a hamburger, and take the hamburger out of your mouth and give it to a homeless person? Is that Christ-like? Sure, the homeless person may really need that burger... but, that burger was forcibly taken from you.. and that is wrong..

"The ends are not justified by the means." Just because you have great intentions to help people with healthcare, doesn't make it right to steal money from others out of their own freewill. Remember, Christ was all about Free Agency. We give because we want to give...

[Dravin]

I see a lot of side stepping, irrevant quotes, and the misuse of logic fallcies.

Well, it's nice to know you have the level of introspection required to recognize your own behavior.

[dash77]

Some people here are trying to use an argument by analogy – comparing similarities to things – extremely poorly. The effects of the analogy are not convincing because of crucial differences. Anatess, your analogy does not exist in real world settings – no one is going to bring a gun to someone head. Your comments are ridiculous. Likewise, prophetofdoom – no one is stealing money and no in is taking a hamburger out of your mouth. These are very silly analogies .

The comparison I am making is very real and exists between governments. The Canadian health care system really does require people to pay more taxes, it really is a bit more superior to American health care, and it really does not deny people coverage. The American model really does cause people to pay lower taxes, it really does cause medical industry to make millions, it really does contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, it really does contribute to bankruptcy, and it really does exclude about 20% of the population. Both residents of Canada and the United States live in extremely rich countries with extremely rich live styles. These are very real.

No one is answering the question of which is more Christ-like. I asked the question and all I am getting back are these extremely silly analogy about putting guns to peoples head that do not exist in real life setting.

So let me answer it. I believe that because I was born in an extremely rich country (United States) that because I have so many wealthy privlesges – even growing up lower-middleclass that I think it is more Christ-like to pay more taxes, so the less fortunate can have basic health care coverage. Like the Savior, it’s about giving to others. Paying more in taxes, like in Canada, still causes medical doctors to be wealthy and does not cause people like me to end up dirt poor. It also helps people who fall on hard time. It’s being a Good Shepard and does not prevent self-reliance. In fact, I think people use the view that it prevents self-reliance in an extremely selfish manner, so that people have more money that by global standards is already filthy rich. They use scriptures and gospel doctrines for self benefit, which in the book of Mormon is known as priest craft.

I am still waiting to hear others reply to the question of which health care system is more Christ-like.

[Guest]

Some people here are trying to use an argument by analogy – comparing similarities to things – extremely poorly. The effects of the analogy are not convincing because of crucial differences. Anatess, your analogy does not exist in real world settings – no one is going to bring a gun to someone head. Your comments are ridiculous. Likewise, prophetofdoom – no one is stealing money and no in is taking a hamburger out of your mouth. These are very silly analogies .

The comparison I am making is very real and exists between governments. The Canadian health care system really does require people to pay more taxes, it really is a bit more superior to American health care, and it really does not deny people coverage. The American model really does cause people to pay lower taxes, it really does cause medical industry to make millions, it really does contribute to 18,000 deaths per year, it really does contribute to bankruptcy, and it really does exclude about 20% of the population. Both residents of Canada and the United States live in extremely rich countries with extremely rich live styles. These are very real.

No one is answering the question of which is more Christ-like. I asked the question and all I am getting back are these extremely silly analogy about putting guns to peoples head that do not exist in real life setting.

So let me answer it. I believe that because I was born in an extremely rich country (United States) that because I have so many wealthy privlesges – even growing up lower-middleclass that I think it is more Christ-like to pay more taxes, so the less fortunate can have basic health care coverage. Like the Savior, it’s about giving to others. Paying more in taxes, like in Canada, still causes medical doctors to be wealthy and does not cause people like me to end up dirt poor. It also helps people who fall on hard time. It’s being a Good Shepard and does not prevent self-reliance. In fact, I think people use the view that it prevents self-reliance in an extremely selfish manner, so that people have more money that by global standards is already filthy rich. They use scriptures and gospel doctrines for self benefit, which in the book of Mormon is known as priest craft.

I am still waiting to hear others reply to the question of which health care system is more Christ-like.

Hah! It does exist in real life setting... try not paying your taxes and see what happens! First there will be someone putting a lein to your house - and if you fight that, then there will be someone putting cuffs to your wrists and a gun to your head.

Really. Try it. See what happens.

[Saldrin]

Who mentioned self-reliance? What I mentioned was, You going out and helping people YOURSELF, instead of stealing people's substance through government because they are seen as being rich. How many of the 20%that don't have health insurance, don't WANT health insurance? Have you ever thought about that? Are we being Christ like in saying they have to do something they don't want to do? So can a product like health care be Christ like? No its a product.. (is it more Christ like to drive a Ford or a Chevy?) People act Christ like in how they treat one another either helping of their own accord or not acting Christ like by stealing from others that supposedly have wealth and enslaving them that way.