quote:

I do not agree that Jesus would see nationalized health care as fabulous.

quote:

Jesus is not about the collective, but about the individual. Individual salvation was his preaching, not collective salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Or, are you saying that government funding of healthcare is what government does/should do?

Your system is working well eh?

I have to point out that you did not answer the question.

And, FYI, the US Government health care spending is already more than what other countries spend, as a % GDP. I've pointed that out in other discussions recently. So, how we're going to cut our %GDP down by increasing what we spend is beyond me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
I wonder about that. He was rooted in the Hebrew tradition, which has a strong sense of "the collective" and the importance of a just society. He taught often about how things would be in the kingdom of God--a communal rather than individual vision. And he certainly stressed our responsibility for one another.
One of Jesus' most challenging parables, moreover, seems to strike deliberately at the notion of individual merit. The laborers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-16) are all paid the same thing no matter how long they've worked.

quote:

13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


I do not agree that Jesus would see nationalized health care as fabulous. Jesus is not about the collective, but about the individual. Individual salvation was his preaching, not collective salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

quote:


I do not agree that Jesus would see nationalized health care as fabulous. Jesus is not about the collective, but about the individual. Individual salvation was his preaching, not collective salvation.

Let me get this straight:
individuals should donate money to help heal those in need with the money they earn,
but Jesus would be against Caesar helping those in need with the money he collects in taxes.


Got it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

An interesting bit of history relating to U.S. drug costs:

By the design of the program [Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed by George W. Bush], the federal government [i.e., Medicare] is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.[27]

* * *

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".[28]

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[29][30] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D. Emphasis mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Or, are you saying that government funding of healthcare is what government does/should do?

Your system is working well eh?

I have to point out that you did not answer the question.
And, FYI, the US Government health care spending is already more than what other countries spend, as a % GDP. I've pointed that out in other discussions recently. So, how we're going to cut our %GDP down by increasing what we spend is beyond me.

I believe it does yes, as both of the countries I have lived in have had government healthcare. One I was born in and one I chose to live in.
I know that for the US< healthcare is not important for the poor ...well its been every man for himself till now, but yes its one of the main reasons I dont live in the US.
cut the greed by the pharma, insurance, lawyers, doctors, hospital administrators,
its simple actually
when a 4000 dollar operation here costs 30,000 in the US, its not the poor that are doing it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Being generous involves giving from your own bounty. Being generous with other people's bounties is not really being generous.

quote:

Being generous involves giving from your own bounty. Being generous with other people's bounties is not really being generous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MAINEiacMISTRESS

Oh, that's NASTY, and I'd suspected something like that. I remember a recording of Nixon in a conversation saying it was a "great idea" for insurance companies to make as much money as possible off Americans by selling them health insurance. Darn it, wish I remembered where I'd seen that, I'd include a link. Perhaps it will ring a bell with someone here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

An interesting bit of history relating to U.S. drug costs:

By the design of the program [Medicare Part D, passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed by George W. Bush], the federal government [i.e., Medicare] is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.[27]

* * *

Estimating how much money could be saved if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate drug prices, economist Dean Baker gives a "most conservative high-cost scenario" of $332 billion between 2006 and 2013 (approximately $50 billion a year), and a "middle cost scenario" of $563 billion in savings "for the same budget window".[28]

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[29][30] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D. Emphasis mine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Is your health care system so overwhelmed that the critically ill are put on waiting lists for life saving procedures and more often than not die before they can get treatment?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your choosing what to do with someone else's bounty is more akin to theft. At the very least, it's an abuse of private property rights. You get to choose what you do with your private property. I get to choose what to do with mine. I don't get to choose what you do. You don't get to choose what I do. I can't choose to take your money/property and give it to charity and make either one of us "charitable." It doesn't work that way.

Actually, government funding of things like healthcare is <finger quotes>democracy</finger quotes>.
And, I do salute you for your ability to twist the intent of Christian teachings to suit your purpose. But, I know that in your heart, Jesus would have viewed nationalised healthcare as a fabulous thing.
You know it... don't you!

"Democracy?" How so?

Or, are you saying that government funding of healthcare is what government does/should do?

quote:



I do not agree that Jesus would see nationalized health care as fabulous. Jesus is not about the collective, but about the individual. Individual salvation was his preaching, not collective salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Jesus aside, I want to help people, and if you have the ability to help people shouldn't you take that opportunity and do it?

quote:

Sure, maybe most of my taxes aren't going to health care, maybe it's going towards something I hate. But why in god's name should it matter whether or not it's individual or collective? Isn't it enough that you're actually helping people? Or are you so greedy that you need to either see the payoff of your charity first hand or you'd let that person suffer? If people pay into a system to support you, like the system here in Canada, isn't it just then to pay those people back by contributing to their health care? People in Canada may have wait times, but no one is ever denied health care the way they are in the states due to monetary problems. Like I said before, I'm not religious, but I'm proud of helping people, regardless of how much money they have and whether or not I get into a ficticious heaven. What are you proud of? Being greedy and only helping others to improve your image with god? Honestly, you may feel that people should just mind their own business with health care, but there are people dying in your country with no way to pay for health care. If you have the means to help in some form, why turn a blind eye? Because you think it's their fault theyre where they are? And going back to Jesus, he helped people unconditionally, why would he say no to method by which countless people would be helped? He never helped people and made it a condition that they followed his beliefs if he did help them. So why would Jesus be against something so selfless and loving as a nationalized healthcare?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Being generous involves giving from your own bounty. Being generous with other people's bounties is not really being generous.

But if people are all contributing money into a pot from which everyone can take from when needed, how is that not generous? Everyone is being generous in order to help everyone else. Now your argument would hold true if you didnt pay for other's healthcare through taxes, and instead took the taxes for healthcare given by someone else and use it to pay your taxes. But that doesnt even really make much sense, so please explain how we're being generous with other people's bounties?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Or, are you saying that government funding of healthcare is what government does/should do? YOUR QUESTION

Your system is working well eh?

I have to point out that you did not answer the question.You say I didnt answer your question, yes??? above yes???? I answered.....I believe it does yes, as both of the countries I have lived in have had government healthcare. One I was born in and one I chose to live in.
I know that for the US< healthcare is not important for the poor ...well its been every man for himself till now, but yes its one of the main reasons I dont live in the US.
And, FYI, the US Government health care spending is already more than what other countries spend, as a % GDP. I've pointed that out in other discussions recently. So, how we're going to cut our %GDP down by increasing what we spend is beyond me.

I believe it does yes, as both of the countries I have lived in have had government healthcare. One I was born in and one I chose to live in.
I know that for the US< healthcare is not important for the poor ...well its been every man for himself till now, but yes its one of the main reasons I dont live in the US.
cut the greed by the pharma, insurance, lawyers, doctors, hospital administrators,
its simple actually
when a 4000 dollar operation here costs 30,000 in the US, its not the poor that are doing it.

I don't know what your first sentence is in response to. I didn't ask any question.

"Cut the greed:" Pharma, insurance, lawyers, doctors, hospital administrators...

Wait, you're saying that the high cost of health care is because of the high cost of the procedures/services? What type of maths are you doing?
what part of insurance, big pharma and lawyers did you miss? AND where did I say services and procedures were the high cost????

I want to point something else out: I've been saying all along that the cost of individual procedures and services is at the heart of the high cost of health care in the US. I have also been saying that Obamacare only shifts the costs from the poor onto those who earn more. That isn't lowering the cost of the services/procedures. Even if we shift from to preventive care away from where we are, that isn't going to lower the cost of services/procedures rendered. It will shift us away from the more expensive services/procedures, but it won't lower the cost of the services/procedures.

I'm not being very successful in finding a comparison of the number of procedures/services provided in the US vs. the number
provided in other countries. The only hits are the ones that compare the costs. We completely agree the costs of services is higher in the US than it is elsewhere. I'm looking for "usage" comparisons, though (ie. how many angioplasties per capita, etc.; but in aggregate form).
Yanno why?? Big Pharm and Insurance Companies dont want you to find out those figures