[peeb]

As if it needed pointing out, a heatwave is not an epidemic. Please try to keep up.

[Spliffdaddy]

I certainly hope peeb is canadian - not American. We already have enough drooling idiots who are intent on losing every skirmish they get involved with.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you are basically saying that health care should be treated differently than public education, police, military, etc... It should be a luxury to have that people pay for, and if you can't afford it, you aren't trying hard enough.

No. I'm saying because of how badly they've bungled our public education system having spent more per student than all other industrialized nations while earning us the coveted ranking of 18th, military spending through the roof, unprecedented corruption and spending overall, and because they are not resourced to manage the collective health care needs. Worse, State governments have already mandated over 1,000 health insurance benefits for services like chiropractic care, drug and alcohol abuse, and marriage counseling. Studies in several States show this coverage accounts for anywhere from 7-21% of all insurance claims, depending on the state. Rising costs is part of the problem however, I'm saying I don't want to upset a system that has produced 18 of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years, and according to a survey by the president’s Council of Economic Advisors; the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. A system that provides care regardless of ability to pay through public hospitals, community health centers, local health departments, and Department of Veterans Affairs facilities (while giving terrible care in general, what would you expect), Medicare and Medicaid.

ebuddy, the bottom line is that your claim is ridiculous. If I'm not part of a large company that can offer health insurance benefits as a supplement to my salary, I'm screwed.

"I'm screwed"? This is your highly-scientific contribution to the thread besson? Couple of facts you should consider;

- The average increase in the numbers of those who are self-employed has been steadily increasing more than 6% from 2000 to 2006. Why would so many willingly join the ranks of the "screwed"???
- A major source of the increasing costs of health care to the self-employed were burdensome government regulations. Many of these have recently been lifted and HSAs can be contributed to 100% tax free as well as other tax-sheltered health savings investments. Those who choose to be self-employed (again, in increasing numbers each year) should consider their family's health care an expense not unlike what they'd have to do to make room for that incredible tax burden you're advocating for them.
- On top of the HSAs, there are a number of outlets offering group rate plans and other discounted rates for health care. You have to shop around and expect more.
- what about the ability to write-off utilities, home depreciation and property taxes, vehicle mileage, auto insurance, fuel, etc... allowing approximately 40% more in tax benefit than the corporate schlep? Also, when taking into account other advantages of self-employment including flexibility, time, freedom, more opportunity to increase your income, working from home, no office attire, no gossip, no office politics, spending time with family, etc... There is a cost/benefit analysis that one must run in determining whether or not they want to be self-employed. Should I be complaining about how unfair it is that I cannot deduct these items on my forms or should I just consider this a difference in personal direction?
- Per NFIB member ballot (a leading small business organization), 70% of its membership opposes universal health care. Apparently they'd rather be "screwed" than bent over the counter and raped. This echoes the same sentiment of most of the self-employed in this country.

If you're going to argue on behalf of the self-employed, perhaps you should consider what they think on this issue.

You found some insurance for $200/month. Great... what about the deductible? What does this actually cover - catastrophic stuff, or is it fully comprehensive?

What about doctor's fees and emergency care in Canada? Great as long as you don't want your kid to be circumcised right? What about the difference in cost when considering an additional 12% of the income tax goes to Canadian health care? I can understand you getting tired of being on the defensive, but it'd help if you could address at least a couple of my points here.

Here is annual health insurance costs for Indiana in 2003:
Health Insurance Costs and Coverage

Apparently, there were a few bugs that you failed to read. Some things they hope to have ironed out for the next report such as;

- The SAHIE program's state estimated uninsured rate for children under age 18 was noticeably different from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS) estimate for several states.
- The SAHIE program's number of uninsured plus insured do not equal the Census population. It was noted to be substantially different in some cases.
- The SAHIE program's estimate is substantially different from an estimate produced for or by individual states.
- Failed to include employment or number of firms as predictors in their models.
- Areas with a large college population appear to have an uninsured estimate that is too high. The group quarters population was excluded.

On top of the fact that accuracy is a pesky little problem with these stats, there are some additional things to consider;

- 25.6 % of New Mexico's population is uninsured, compared to 7.3 % in Wisconsin. According to the Census Bureau, 13.6 % of the US' native-born population lacked health insurance in 1995, while 32.5 % of the foreign-born were uninsured and 40.6 % of foreign-born non-citizens lacked coverage. Instead of viewing those who toe the line on issues like health care and immigration as being either right or left, let's think about right or wrong here for a minute. I've seen you throw the word "republican" around in this thread at least 3 times here. What is it you're afraid of exactly, that there's a remote possibility they may be more than just right of center, but right?

The average employer and employee is paying $3500/year for insurance (in 2003), and this is not taking into account deductibles. Are you naive enough to think that a $200/month insurance package is comprehensive, and that $3500 is being paid on average for no reason?

First of all, this figure pales in comparison to what we're paying on average annually for things we don't need. Again, another point you failed to address. Secondly, you seem to act as if the tax contribution in universal health care doesn't count here all of a sudden. I told you that upon viewing my paycheck found that while 12% of my income tax goes to the public health, over 22% of Canada's income tax goes to the public health and there's a difference in real dollars. That difference in dollars almost pays my share of the monthly premium and I'm getting superior care.

The average family pays $2300 plus deductible, and this is *with* the employer chipping in most of this ($7000). Do you really expect a family to be able to afford $10,000 year in health care costs plus deductible, keeping in mind that these numbers are from 2003 and at group rates?

You're all over the place. In one breath you're talking about a self-employed individual, then including that in some emotional appeal to a family plan. I told you the range of deductibles in the plans I quoted you and those were in fact comprehensive FAMILY plans for the self-employed. Extremely good plans, particularly the ones through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Secondly, the health care package you receive as an employee of a corporation is part of the compensation package. It should be noted that in most cases employers are offering a host of plans to maintain help. Your $10,000.00/year figure is not what the family is paying in health coverage per year. I have a family of four and I'm paying $86.74 per month.

Are you trying to imply that these millions of Americans are just too lazy to go looking, and that they all can easily afford their own insurance?

Are you disingenuously citing numbers that don't take into account job migration, kids in college covered under their parent's policy, immigrants, and the millions who qualify for medicare/medicaid yet remain unenrolled? Did you know that well over 100,000 people die every year due to misdiagnosis/drug interaction, and malpractice? Did you know that there is no such thing as a nerf world?

Unless you can explain to me how a family could be able to justify forking over upwards of $10,000/year plus the deductible on a limited income, you are completely full of it.

I don't have to explain it and I'll tell you why;
1) You're full of crap out of the gate. I pay $1040.88/year for a family of 4 and have a comprehensive AETNA plan with very low deductible. A deductible that is met by a "flex-spending" account I set up tax-deferred through this same employer.
2) This plan includes optical, dental, emergency, prescription drugs, etc... items the Canadian system does not cover. These are out-of-pocket expenses to you. I know you don't like to include them in your bogus figures, but this is fact.
3) You've had two people who've lived through the unfortunate circumstance of requiring government assistance not only for health coverage, but for food and other provisions tell you how it works. You've had an insurance agent tell you otherwise, the facts tell you otherwise, Canada courting privatization should tell you otherwise, we've all told you otherwise. The sad fact of the matter is that if the US embraces universal health care, Canadians will have nowhere else to go.

So, why is it that that a Canadian family would spend as little as $600/year for the same comprehensive coverage? Even taking the high end into account of $900 per tax payer (the minimum is $300), that is $1800 vs. $10,000...

Does this compute?

No as a matter of fact it doesn't. I pay 1/10th of what you claim and I'm extremely happy with my coverage. Better yet, I don't have to listen to my State's representatives bitch to the Federal Government about how they failed yet again to meet their monetary promises to the State for health care and why we need to overhaul the system in favor of more privatization.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

As if it needed pointing out, a heatwave is not an epidemic. Please try to keep up.

Typical peeb- attempts to cover his ass with a lame semantic argument, and isn't even correct about that! Classic.

"Epidemic: an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development <an epidemic of bankruptcies>"

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Typical peeb- attempts to cover his ass with a lame semantic argument, and isn't even correct about that! Classic.

"Epidemic: an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development <an epidemic of bankruptcies>"

You're wrong, again. That is using the word in a metaphorical sense. While that is fine in conversation, it does not mean that you will find hospitals treating epidemics of bankruptcies. The point is that the example of the french heatwaves was a completely vacuous one, because a heatwave is not an epidemic in the medical sense. 'An epidemic of stupid posts by CRASH HARDDRIVE', while unfortunate, is not something a health system would deal with

You are the one trying to cover your ass. None of the 'oh my god not the S word' gaggle have come up with an explanation of how they will deal with epidemics without a socialized health system.
You're wrong on your semantic pedantry, just as you're wrong on everything else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

"According to 2002 figures, the Paris regional hospitals that were surveyed could have expected some 39 deaths a day, the ministry said. But Tuesday, they recorded nearly 180, it said.

"We can qualify what is happening to us as a true epidemic," Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei told France-Inter radio interview on Thursday. He said the heat wave had caused a very large number of deaths, especially among the elderly."

Typical peeb- attempts to cover his ass with a lame semantic argument, and isn't even correct about that! Classic.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: the info I came up with was provided by my employer. What state do you live in? I would like to research average health care costs in your state.

Also, how much of your insurance cost is being paid for by your employer? How much would the same coverage cost if you had to pay for it out of your own pocket?

[CreepDogg]

It looks like ebuddy has a very well-subsidized plan by his employer. Just for more anecdotal evidence - my cost for coverage for my wife and I is about twice his. Add in the employer cost and the total approaches 10K/year. Most employers are scrambling to keep costs down - will US corporations be able to remain competitive if they continue to bear the brunt of most of these costs?

I also hope ebuddy never has a family member with a serious medical problem, and never has to experience the force of a corporation trying to boost its bottom line for the quarter at his expense. The incentives are all skewed - I'd prefer a DOCTOR making decisions about my needs (with reasonable checks and balances - 'reasonable' being the operative word), not some accountant or bought-off physician trying to save the insurance company money.

I also don't care very much about innovation in medicine if I don't have access to it, which is where the incentives lead the way the system is set up. A new innovative treatment would likely be expensive (since that's the incentive for innovation in the first place), and would likely then be deemed 'experimental' by an insurance company unwilling to pay.

I don't know what the answer is - there are a lot of folks who know a lot more about it than me. I do know the system is broken and the economic incentives are completely skewed from the focus of caring for the sick. It seems in the US we've decided it's OK to profit off the sickness of others. I think we can do better.

[besson3c]

Because it is so expensive to buy individual health insurance coverage without having an employer to chip in for this cost, I wonder what effect this is having/will have on technological innovation in this country? Is it harder for a brand new company to raise capital and get their product out the door while having to provide medical insurance to its employees?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"According to 2002 figures, the Paris regional hospitals that were surveyed could have expected some 39 deaths a day, the ministry said. But Tuesday, they recorded nearly 180, it said.

"We can qualify what is happening to us as a true epidemic," Health Minister Jean-Francois Mattei told France-Inter radio interview on Thursday. He said the heat wave had caused a very large number of deaths, especially among the elderly."

Typical peeb- attempts to cover his ass with a lame semantic argument, and isn't even correct about that! Classic.

So you are saying that, because the French health-care system appears not to have been adequately prepared for environmental concerns (which are NOT an epidemic in the medical sense, you still seem to need to look up 'metaphor' in the dictionary) you want to go on to make the claim that that is the fault of the healthcare system being socialized?
You're really quite stupid. First, in trying to continue to argue a semantic point that you've already lost. Secondly in trying to make the 'well, the privatized healthcare system in Louisiana didn't do very well in Katrina, so private health care must be the problem' argument with a hot summer in France, not realizing that hot summers are not the same as infectious epidemics. You don't catch heat-stroke from other people with heat-stroke. Jeez. Talking to you is like trying to train a stupid dog.

All of this, apparently so that you don't have to admit to being pwnd by the question "how will you deal with tuberculosis without a socialized healthcare system?" Go on - avoid answering it YET AGAIN with more abuse and irrelevant dribble.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol
I'm glad you're not on my side of this debate. I'd have to switch sides just to get away.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: the info I came up with was provided by my employer. What state do you live in? I would like to research average health care costs in your state.

I live in Nebraska. Where do you live? The quotes I gave you were from 5 minutes' time googling insurance for self-employed. As you saw, there were a host of plans, deductibles, and health savings accounts, and discounted care options, but you have to avail yourself of those options and expect more.

Also, how much of your insurance cost is being paid for by your employer?

This is actually none of your business. It is part of my compensation package and pay. When I shopped employers, this was part of my decision. It should be an integral part of the decision for any discriminating person seeking employment.

How much would the same coverage cost if you had to pay for it out of your own pocket?

The short answer to your question on how much it would cost to pay for this insurance myself is; quite a bit. The reasons for this are vast. For one thing, a group plan assumes a more ambiguous risk as explained to you by an insurance agent in this forum. I quoted you a list of providers and monthly costs for individual family plans and you had little to say other than expressing your surprise at the number of options. I believe the single biggest problem is the fact that we're no longer shopping for health care. We're paying large firms to negotiate health care for us and because they are large firms, hospitals and doctors are charging arbitrarily inflated rates. Typical market conditions are subverted by this method and patients are losing out to an increasing number each year. I never said our system wasn't ill, but the major problems are fraud and waste. I've been claiming that nationalizing it by giving control of it to the masters of fraud and waste is a very bad idea.

Again IMO, you cannot repeatedly express your distaste and distrust in the current Administration indicting them for inefficiency, corruption, deceit, and unprecedented civil rights abuses in one breath and advocate giving them our health care in the next. The logic of the two simply do not add up. The examples of government institutions that continuously get brought up in here including public education and social security are prime examples of why government entities this bloated are not suited to provide universal health care.

There's another factor to consider; the government is not adequately resourced to care more for your health than you. It's really just as simple as this. Per Consumer Expenditure Survey released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor (2005);

- Average Income before taxes; $58,712
- Average annual expenditures; $46,409
- Spent on Food; At home $3,297 and Away from home (i.e. eating out) $2,634
- Housing; $15,167
- Apparel and Services; $1,886
- Transportation; $8,344
- Health Care; $2,664
- Entertainment; $2,388
- Personal Insurance and Pensions; $5,204
- Other Expenditures; $4,823

Aside from the fact that per above we're due some additional tax breaks (in the interest of affording health care and all), it seems we're spending 10% of our income after taxes on eating out and entertainment while spending 5% on health care. Just to reiterate, we're spending twice as much of our income on eating out and entertainment than we're spending on health care. A crisis is generally one people will react to. Judging from the above, there is no crisis. This is not to say that action is unnecessary, but it starts with us. Not some bloated, inefficient, wasteful, and deceitful government bureucracy.

If we nationalize our healthcare, Canadians will have nowhere else to go.

[besson3c]

So, Michael Moore claims that 18,000 people/year die because they don't have health insurance.

Is this true?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I live in Nebraska. Where do you live? The quotes I gave you were from 5 minutes' time googling insurance for self-employed. As you saw, there were a host of plans, deductibles, and health savings accounts, and discounted care options, but you have to avail yourself of those options and expect more.

I live in Indiana. I asked how comprehensive these plans were and what their deductibles were, but I don't think you've answered this yet.

This is actually none of your business. It is part of my compensation package and pay. When I shopped employers, this was part of my decision. It should be an integral part of the decision for any discriminating person seeking employment.

Okay, so what are people who don't have a skill set in demand supposed to do that just need some sort of job, and don't have the luxury to shop around for employers?

Most of us have been there, at least in a transitional period of our lives.

The short answer to your question on how much it would cost to pay for this insurance myself is; quite a bit. The reasons for this are vast. For one thing, a group plan assumes a more ambiguous risk as explained to you by an insurance agent in this forum. I quoted you a list of providers and monthly costs for individual family plans and you had little to say other than expressing your surprise at the number of options.

I was surprised, but I also had follow-up questions.

I believe the single biggest problem is the fact that we're no longer shopping for health care. We're paying large firms to negotiate health care for us and because they are large firms, hospitals and doctors are charging arbitrarily inflated rates. Typical market conditions are subverted by this method and patients are losing out to an increasing number each year. I never said our system wasn't ill, but the major problems are fraud and waste. I've been claiming that nationalizing it by giving control of it to the masters of fraud and waste is a very bad idea.

How many health insurance companies are there, and how many simply get bought out? These health insurance companies are *huge*, competing against them is like a local store trying to compete against a Walmart or a Target. Shopping around is a nice thing to say, but when these options cease to exist we have a problem.

Again IMO, you cannot repeatedly express your distaste and distrust in the current Administration indicting them for inefficiency, corruption, deceit, and unprecedented civil rights abuses in one breath and advocate giving them our health care in the next. The logic of the two simply do not add up. The examples of government institutions that continuously get brought up in here including public education and social security are prime examples of why government entities this bloated are not suited to provide universal health care.

I'd rather this administration get started on correcting this problem than leave things the way they are now. If there are things about the implementation that I don't like, I can always hold out hope that a future administration will help correct them. I firmly believe that the system we have in place now is broken and needs to be corrected. I just don't know that there is a solution that involves private for-profit health insurance companies.

Aside from the fact that per above we're due some additional tax breaks (in the interest of affording health care and all), it seems we're spending 10% of our income after taxes on eating out and entertainment while spending 5% on health care. Just to reiterate, we're spending twice as much of our income on eating out and entertainment than we're spending on health care. A crisis is generally one people will react to. Judging from the above, there is no crisis. This is not to say that action is unnecessary, but it starts with us. Not some bloated, inefficient, wasteful, and deceitful government bureucracy.

This is interesting and valid, but how can we correct this? Simply by telling all Americans "sorry, we're not doing anything until you stop entertaining yourself"?

If we nationalize our healthcare, Canadians will have nowhere else to go.

If you read Spliffdaddy's article, you'll have read that the number of Canadians who come here for treatment has been blown out of proportion. If you really want to play this sort of game, how many Americans go north for their prescription drugs?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, Michael Moore claims that 18,000 people/year die because they don't have health insurance.

Is this true?

Even if it's 30,000 people, it'd be a quarter of the number that die because of health care. Why? Overtreatment. More medicine is administered than necessary, people are hospitalized unnecessarily, and doctors prescribe drugs instead of healthy lifestyle choices.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Even if it's 30,000 people, it'd be a quarter of the number that die because of health care. Why? Overtreatment. More medicine is administered than necessary, people are hospitalized unnecessarily, and doctors prescribe drugs instead of healthy lifestyle choices.

Excellent point!

I'd absolutely for changing this aspect of our culture too, no question. I just don't know how to make such a radical cultural shift like this.

However, part of me thinks that having easier access to a doctor for preventative care might help. Yes, there is nothing stopping somebody from going to see a doctor, but when it comes down to the question of whether or not to spend money, on a tight budget many would prefer to take a chance here.

Unfortunately, these sorts of chances put a strain on our system, which is part of the overall problem.

[besson3c]

ebuddy,

Just to put those tables for Indiana I provided for you in context, they were put together by Indiana University, the largest state university in the state, and one of the big 10 universities. There are over 200,000 students/staff/faculty in all IU campuses, and IU works closely with the state governments on a number of things. For instance, our governor Mitch Daniels mandated that IU start outsourcing some of its programs, so we have been.

So, I'm certain that those numbers were provided by the state. The worst of it is, it looks like Indiana does pretty well compared to many other states. If $10,000 plus deductible for a family is not even a ceiling for an average, we have a problem.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you are saying that, because the French health-care system appears not to have been adequately prepared for environmental concerns blah blah blah..

Poor peeb. It simply amazes me the bone-stupid argumentative branches you manage to get yourself out on and then saw off behind yourself. Even the French admit that 15,000 (!!!) people dying suddenly was both an epidemic (heck, most EU countries even filed Epidemiology reports after the heat wave of 2003!) and that it was a gross and chronic failure of their health care system.

"The new estimate comes a day after the French Parliament released a harshly worded report blaming the deaths on a complex health system, widespread failure among agencies and health services to coordinate efforts, and chronically insufficient care for the elderly."

But of course French officials don't know their own system better than some little doofus trying to mount a hopeless semantic argument on the internet! Only in your world is a loss of 15,000 people not a major health care crisis!

All of this, apparently so that you don't have to admit to being pwnd by the question "how will you deal with tuberculosis without a socialized healthcare system?" Go on - avoid answering it YET AGAIN with more abuse and irrelevant dribble.

WHO numbers:

Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100 000 population per year)
United States of America -4.5
Canada -4.7
Australia -5.8
Sweden -5.9
Belgium -12.8
France -12.9
United Kingdom 14.2

You were saying, peeb?

Are you EVER right about *anything*??

[Spliffdaddy]

Not so far.

[besson3c]

Guys, conversation always degenerates when it becomes a pissing contest or about insulting people.

Please restrain yourselves.

[peeb]

You still don't understand what an epidemic is.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

WHO numbers:

Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100 000 population per year)
United States of America -4.5
Canada -4.7
Australia -5.8
Sweden -5.9
Belgium -12.8
France -12.9
United Kingdom 14.2

You were saying, peeb?

I was saying 'how will you deal with Tuberculosis without a socialized healtcare system?'. You STILL haven't answered. TB care in the US is largely socialized. (Division of Tuberculosis Elimination | Surveillance Report 2004 | Archived Reports 1999-2003) how will you deal with this without a socialized healthcare system? Your constant own-goals (pointing out that the socialized system in the US works really well) serve to underline what an idiot you are.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

lol
I'm glad you're not on my side of this debate. I'd have to switch sides just to get away.

:guffaw:

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

See the highlighted sentence? That's the closest you came to addressing my question. You say that Christians help poor people with serious illnesses by "putting them in touch" with the outlets you mentioned. They also help them to "file for government aid". So on the one hand you're saying that you simply redirect them to another authority to deal with them, and you neglect to mention the specifics as to what exact aid they'll receive from the outlets you mentioned, and on the other you say that you let the government handle it! Doesn't the "government handling it" go against your entire position?

No, my position is that the poor in the US have health care and that if you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying. Please follow along. Your line of questioning is disingenuous and you're not making a cogent argument for anything. This entire post was a rant with no facts, no substance, and failed to address any of the points made here. What is it you're asking me anyway; whether or not the Christian organizations actually administer the care??? How many secular humanist organizations without medical licensing are administering health care itistoday?

Do the "outlets" pay for all the medical treatment these people need? Do they pay for surgeries, medication, etc? Do they expect their money back? Do they pay for all kinds of surgeries or only certain types? Do they pay for all those referred to them or only certain groups?

More absurd questions. There are organizations for just about any affliction you can think of. Christian charity organizations don't screen the needy for their world view prior to service. They also don't ask for their money back. That's why they call it charity. I believe it was you I asked whether or not you even know enough about Christianity to understand the answers I give and you make it patently clear that you don't.

- Children's Emergency Relief Teams
- Children's Hunger Fund Foundation
- Chilren's Survival Fund
- Christian Charities USA
- Christian Children's Health and Hope Mission
- Christian Medical and Dental Associations
- Christian Orthopaedic Partners
- Global Action International
- Interchurch Medical Assistance, Inc.
- Lifewater International
- Medical Ministry International
- Medical Teams International
- Missionary Care, Every Tribe, Every Nation, Every tongue
- Missionary Care Services International

This is just to name a few. You're welcome to rattle off some secular humanist or atheist groups if you wish. I'd like to do a little dollar-for-dollar comparison on who is full of rhetoric and who is actually working to solve the problems. Can't? Then what's with this line of questioning?

And none of that matters to somebody with terminal cancer and no health insurance! They don't need "care packages" or "ringing bells". They need money.

I want you to understand that by throwing in the exclamation points you're only screaming ignorance in some emotional appeal that has no foundation in facts. My mother died of small-cell lung cancer. I'm well aware of what people in this circumstance need and it's not always more medication and treatment. In fact, over-treatment is killing over a hundred thousand people per year. Have you ever met or served anyone with terminal cancer? Did you know that sometimes a damned foot rub is heaven? WHERE'S THE MONEY?!? PAY!!!! MONEY!!!! You really haven't put a whole lot of thought into your argument. Whatever it is. In many cases people just need provisions, but what do you think the bell ringing is for? Candy? Yes, all of the above and more are available for those who call on them. They don't have to just as the millions of people eligible for Medicare and Medicaid don't.

And if you are implying, when you say, "helping collect donations", that this is how Christians pay for their treatment, then you should see that this is the same thing that universal healthcare is doing, the only difference is that you're going to need more money from individual donators since the number of people donating will be much smaller than the entire population of the United States. In fact there's a chance you might not even get the necessary amount of money, or the donations might come in too late. You're also still off-loading responsibility, a concept conservatives take issue with.

This is the second time you've misinterpreted a statement of mine then concluded this is somehow not in line with conservative values. Are you championing the merits of conservative values now? Seriously, do you believe conservative values have virtue? I don't think it's compassionate to give the health of our entire nation to a bunch of cigar-chomping special interest politicians who've proven more capable of corruption, fraud, and waste than running a friggin' program. We have public education and social security as exhibits A and B. A little fact-checking would show you that statistically, private charities are much more effective and efficient dollar-for-dollar than government entities. When you require folks to pay more in taxes, they get the false sense of security that the problems are actually being addressed when in truth the government cannot address the issues we're discussing. The poor have health care already. This has already been addressed six ways from Sunday. You're welcome to revisit any post in this thread and address the actual points because so far, you've contributed absolutely nothing.

By the authority that it's more effective and will save more lives.

You don't know what you're talking about, but you know the above looks good on paper doesn't it? I wish empty rhetoric would solve the problem, but unfortunately some action is necessary. You're trying to nail me against a wall on what Christians are doing when it is patently obvious they are the lions-share of charity and aid in this country. Of course as always, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I have a question for you, do Christians help everyone?

Yes.

I know that the answer to this is no, at least for a significant portion of Christians.

Significant? How many is that? When was the last time you went to a Christian event???

There are many Churches that do not allow openly homosexual members in their doors.

Neither will the US military. Just because you slap the name of a state or a country on a building does not mean bigotry and human nature cannot exist there.

Will you or your church, for example, offer to pay for the surgery of a homeless atheist? Or does he not matter because the heretic is going to burn in hell for eternity anyway?

What are you arguing here? Are you railing against me because your mother dressed you all funny and made you go to church? Save it for your therapist.

Of course our church and millions of churches across this country and in fact across the world help those of all philosophical worldviews and conditions. That's what they do. Would you save a dying Christian or would you just indict him for the Inquisitions and accuse him of dying just to try and convert you to Christianity? Think I'm a moron for this line of questioning yet? I hope so.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, Michael Moore claims that 18,000 people/year die because they don't have health insurance.

Is this true?

You know, lies, damn lies and statistics…

[peeb]

<sound effect>Sound of crickets chirping</sound effect>
'how will you deal with Tuberculosis without a socialized healtcare system?'. You STILL haven't answered.

[bstone]

MDR? XDR? Pandemic? A few people getting it? The random injury attorney putting thousands of people at risk?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, my position is that the poor in the US have health care and that if you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying. Please follow along. Your line of questioning is disingenuous and you're not making a cogent argument for anything. This entire post was a rant with no facts, no substance, and failed to address any of the points made here. What is it you're asking me anyway; whether or not the Christian organizations actually administer the care??? How many secular humanist organizations without medical licensing are administering health care itistoday?

I asked you what conservative Christians are doing to help people with serious illnesses and no money. I was never being disingenuous. Seems to me like you are overreacting a little bit, a simple "Yes, conservative Christians collect money to pay for the cost of healthcare for others" would have sufficed nicely.

More absurd questions.

Chill, you can help relieve me of my ignorance on the subject by simply answering the questions, which were never meant to be taken as absurd.

There are organizations for just about any affliction you can think of. Christian charity organizations don't screen the needy for their world view prior to service. They also don't ask for their money back. That's why they call it charity. I believe it was you I asked whether or not you even know enough about Christianity to understand the answers I give and you make it patently clear that you don't.

- Children's Emergency Relief Teams
- Children's Hunger Fund Foundation
- Chilren's Survival Fund
- Christian Charities USA
- Christian Children's Health and Hope Mission
- Christian Medical and Dental Associations
- Christian Orthopaedic Partners
- Global Action International
- Interchurch Medical Assistance, Inc.
- Lifewater International
- Medical Ministry International
- Medical Teams International
- Missionary Care, Every Tribe, Every Nation, Every tongue
- Missionary Care Services International

Not all of those deal with problems in the United States (I checked). Simply listing the names of various organizations does not show how these organizations help or who they help.

But I digress, I will take your word for it since you are correct when you stated that I've never been to a Christian event where they hand out money to sick poor people, and since I haven't the time to search online for the details, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are correct in saying there is a Christian organization for just about every affliction there is and that these organizations do indeed pay for the medical bills of all those poor people who come to them seeking help. If there's anyone out there reading this who has evidence to the contrary, please let it be heard.

This is just to name a few. You're welcome to rattle off some secular humanist or atheist groups if you wish. I'd like to do a little dollar-for-dollar comparison on who is full of rhetoric and who is actually working to solve the problems. Can't? Then what's with this line of questioning?

Again, I have mentioned numerous times the government pays for the healthcare of a certain group of those who cannot afford it (via medicare and medicaid). However, as it has been discussed, the government could do a whole lot more. If you'd like to do a dollar-for-dollar comparison all you have to do is present data the shows the total value in dollars that your Christian organizations have spent in paying for medical expenses. We can then compare that to what medicare/medicaid spends yearly.

I want you to understand that by throwing in the exclamation points you're only screaming ignorance in some emotional appeal that has no foundation in facts. My mother died of small-cell lung cancer. I'm well aware of what people in this circumstance need and it's not always more medication and treatment. In fact, over-treatment is killing over a hundred thousand people per year. Have you ever met or served anyone with terminal cancer? Did you know that sometimes a damned foot rub is heaven? WHERE'S THE MONEY?!? PAY!!!! MONEY!!!! You really haven't put a whole lot of thought into your argument.

I'm sorry to hear that about your mother. You missed my point however, it's not as if I don't realize that a foot rub would be well received with someone confined to a bed for several days or weeks, or that simply the presence of another person there with them would greatly ease their mind. When I said "They need money." I thought it was obvious that I was referring to those who were not lying in a hospital bed undergoing treatment; those people without health insurance.

This is the second time you've misinterpreted a statement of mine then concluded this is somehow not in line with conservative values. Are you championing the merits of conservative values now? Seriously, do you believe conservative values have virtue?

In my discussions with you in the past you've made it clear to me that you hold many conservative values, I was merely pointing out that some of the statements you were making were not in line with typical conservative values. Yes, I realize that is possible. I would be one the last people on this forum to champion the merits of conservative values, to me that concept is practically an oxymoron.

I don't think it's compassionate to give the health of our entire nation to a bunch of cigar-chomping special interest politicians who've proven more capable of corruption, fraud, and waste than running a friggin' program. We have public education and social security as exhibits A and B.

While I can't comment on social security (too young to have any experience with it), I can certainly say that you're wrong to present public education as a total failure. I went to an excellent public school, it was better than most private schools in the United States. As you say later on in your post: "Just because you slap the name of a state or a country on a building does not mean bigotry and human nature cannot exist there." This same concept applies for private institutions. Public education can be done right, I have seen it with my own eyes, I am in fact the product of it. To dismiss all of it because of the failures of a subset is short-sighted. Public education has many benefits over private education.

A little fact-checking would show you that statistically, private charities are much more effective and efficient dollar-for-dollar than government entities.

I would be interested in seeing these statistics, link?

When you require folks to pay more in taxes, they get the false sense of security that the problems are actually being addressed when in truth the government cannot address the issues we're discussing. The poor have health care already. This has already been addressed six ways from Sunday.

The poor, and even the middle class, as has been expounded in 'Sicko', do not "have health care". One thing is to make that claim, the other is to actually witness it in practice, and in practice many people who thought they were covered realized they were not for a variety of terrible reasons.

You're welcome to revisit any post in this thread and address the actual points because so far, you've contributed absolutely nothing.

Perhaps you feel this way in respect to your arguments, but I have been actively contributing to the arguments of other people in this thread (greenG4 as an example). I also hope that I can have a constructive conversation with you about your opinions on the matter as well.

You don't know what you're talking about, but you know the above looks good on paper doesn't it? I wish empty rhetoric would solve the problem, but unfortunately some action is necessary.

What I am talking about looks good on paper and when implemented correctly, in real life as well. Universal healthcare exists in a variety of different forms throughout the industrialized world, the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't have it, and because of that 18,000 people die every year in this country.

You're trying to nail me against a wall on what Christians are doing when it is patently obvious they are the lions-share of charity and aid in this country. Of course as always, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Honestly, I was trying to do that. However, you've made it clear to me that they do a significant amount of work. I'm a person who did not grow up in a Christian family, nor have I attended very many Christian functions or charities. When I asked you those "absurd questions" it was because I genuinely did not know the answer to them.

My exposure to Christianity (and Catholicism) has given me a very negative impression of the religion, at least the common version of it that is taught to most Christians. For the most part, the Christians that I have encountered (be it in person or through the news, eg. G. W. Bush) have not been generous or tolerant people. For the most part these so-called "Christians" do not follow the principles of tolerance and kindness of their "personal lord and savior" Jesus Christ.

For example, on a fairly regular basis I will walk through my university's campus square and witness several Christians holding up massive signs saying various horrible things. I remember one of them distinctly, it went something along these lines: "Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Hindus ... [don't remember all of them] ... REPENT!! OR SUFFER ETERNAL DAMNATION!" I talked to one of these people and he flat out told me that according to his religion if you do not "accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior" then you will spend the rest of eternity being tortured in hell. Needless to say, it seems plain to me that this is a very stupid, primitive concept. Do you disagree?

Perhaps you might see now why I asked you those questions.

Yes.

I'll believe that some Christians help everyone, but I *know* that this does not apply to all of them. You might say those people are not Christians, but they would disagree with you.

Of course our church and millions of churches across this country and in fact across the world help those of all philosophical worldviews and conditions. That's what they do. Would you save a dying Christian or would you just indict him for the Inquisitions and accuse him of dying just to try and convert you to Christianity? Think I'm a moron for this line of questioning yet? I hope so.

Well, they haven't been doing a perfect job in that case. All I've been saying this entire time is that I strongly feel that the government is in a far better position to properly handle the issue of healthcare than any other entity, be it a business or the Church. As long as it is implemented correctly of course.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by bstone 

MDR? XDR? Pandemic? A few people getting it? The random injury attorney putting thousands of people at risk?

The basic problem is this: Tuberculosis is highly contagious. In the US, most of the people who have it are either homeless or prison populations. Nearly all the care in the US is socialized, with publicly funded clinics treating people for free. This works very well. If you don't want socialized healthcare in the US, how will you treat TB when these communities develop drug resistant strains (as is happening in Asia and Africa, where socialized care is absent)?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You still don't understand what an epidemic is.

You're still a nitwit who's unable to read, let alone think critically. I posted the definition of epidemic and the fact that the term is often used for sudden conditions brought about by events other than disease- IE: heat illness, heatstroke, etc. kill people just as dead as a contagious disease, and it makes absolutely no real-world difference from an epidemic standpoint if you have thousands of people dying of illness brought on by heat, a friggen germ, a pathogen, or whatever). You were of course unable to read and/or comprehend the definition and usage, being your usual ignorant self.

I've posted examples where health officials in power during the 2003 heatwave referred to it as an epidemic (not to mention the fact that all affected nations conducted epidemiology reports) and you did your usual "Nuh Uh!" close your eyes and stomp your feet like a two year old response. Of course, did I expect more of you? No.

I was saying 'how will you deal with Tuberculosis without a socialized healtcare system?'.

The whole debate is about whether we need to nationalize our entire heath care system or not. You went off spitting all over your monitor about TB, when the facts clearly show that our current system (that ISN'T nationalized) handles TB WITHOUT the bloated government controlling the entire heath care industry- and more damning to your non-argument, is the fact that TB is clearly much more prevalent in countries WITH socialized health care. Nothing about your dumb tact argues in favor of letting a bloated govt. bureaucracy take over the healthcare industry, certainly not rates of TB occurrences.

So typical of you, you then try and switch gears and claim socialism gets the credit for the low TB rates in the US.... but gee whiz, how convenient for you at it doesn't get the blame for the far higher TB rates in every other country with a socialized heath care system. TYPICAL peeb "logic". But of course, did I expect more of you? No.

[peeb]

You are simply wrong. On every count. You've already been proved wrong (see above). Repeated refutations of your errors is clearly not working. Let's try one more time with one of the most brazen mistakes you are making though. You claim that "our current system (that ISN'T nationalized) handles TB WITHOUT the bloated government controlling the entire heath care industry- and more damning to your non-argument, is the fact that TB is clearly much more prevalent in countries WITH socialized health care."
Where to start...?
1) The US TB care system IS Nationalized!
2) The government controls it almost entirely.
3) It isn't bloated.
4) It works very well.
You want to draw from this the conclusion that socialized healthcare does not work - to do this, you produce the example of a part of the US healthcare system that is FULLY SOCIALIZED and works very well. I think we're done here. Sputter and dribble all you like - you haven't said anything worth reading in pages, and clearly are not paying attention to the world around you.

[bstone]

It's pretty simple. Without a national healthcare system, those without health insurance will die. Those with will live. Almost like Drawinism, but the difference is this is the "survival of the richest".

[peeb]

Originally Posted by bstone 

It's pretty simple. Without a national healthcare system, those without health insurance will die. Those with will live. Almost like Drawinism, but the difference is this is the "survival of the richest".

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. Without a nationalized healthcare system even the rich die of diseases that grow resistant strains that develop in sub-classes that are systematically excluded. Even given that the 'rich' are willing to live in enclaves and somehow clear away the bodies of the 'poor', and put down revolts that would occur. This is why capitalist countries (including the US) develop extensive socialized systems. It is essential to prevent revolution.

[Spliffdaddy]

Dude. You've never been right about anything. I'm pretty sure that's a new record.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You want to draw from this the conclusion that socialized healthcare does not work - to do this, you produce the example

... of all the nations of the world with socialized heathcare systems having incidents of TB MANY times higher than the US, and in fact the US being lower than them all! It's YOUR dumb example, trying to claim that socialized heath care leads to less TB, not mine. So it's on YOU to explain the failure of the socialized systems in other countries being unable to deal with TB as well as the US does without nationalizing it's entire heath care system.

Do less spinning, and answer that.

But of course, you're unable to even grasp the concept of this whole debate, let alone realize that you came up with a REALLY DUMB example that proves exactly the opposite of what you were stumping for.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

... of all the nations of the world with socialized heathcare systems having incidents of TB MANY times higher than the US, and in fact the US being lower than them all! It's YOUR dumb example, trying to claim that socialized heath care leads to less TB, not mine. So it's on YOU to explain the failure of the socialized systems in other countries being unable to deal with TB as well as the US does without nationalizing it's entire heath care system.

Do less spinning, and answer that.

But of course, you're unable to even grasp the concept of this whole debate, let alone realize that you came up with a REALLY DUMB example that proves exactly the opposite of what you were stumping for.

Look, I can't stop you from keeping on shooting yourself in the foot. TB care in the US IS SOCIALIZED - practically all TB clinics are government owned and operated. And yet they work, really well. Your argument has nowhere to go. You are pwnd. You just don't have the nous to realize it. Stop embarrassing yourself. You can't keep basic facts straight.

[TheWOAT]

I think this TB debate is off topic since no one has advocated for the privatization of the CDC.

[peeb]

For sure they are. Anyone who is railing against the evils of socialized medicine can't have it both ways. On the one hand, Crash Harddrive wants to say that socialized medicine is bloated, expensive and doesn't work, and yet large parts of the US healthcare system ARE socialized, they are cheap, efficient and very effective. These parts are probably far more relevant than discussion of France or Canada's system, because they are examples of US socialized healthcare that works really well, right now.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Look, I can't stop you from keeping on shooting yourself in the foot. TB care in the US IS SOCIALIZED - practically all TB clinics are government owned and operated. And yet they work, really well. Your argument has nowhere to go. You are pwnd. You just don't have the nous to realize it. Stop embarrassing yourself. You can't keep basic facts straight.

Not surprisingly, you are totally incorrect.

TB care is not "socialized" in the US. In fact, there exists no active TB vaccination program at any level of government. Not state, not local, not federal. None. There is NO PROGRAM. There are no standalone "TB clinics".

"The tuberculosis (TB) vaccine is rarely used in the United States. It is only recommended for those children living with someone who is actively infected with TB and who either cannot take antibiotics to treat the infection or is infected with a strain of TB that is highly resistant to all antibiotics. The TB vaccine is given as a single shot."

We treat TB here in the US just like we treat the flu. You either seek treatment from a private physician or you seek treatment from a public health clinic.

I've decided that you're pulling this stuff out of your ass. You know, that thing everybody keeps handing you.

[peeb]

Free Evaluation and Treatment for Tuberculosis : Bureau of Tuberculosis Control : NYC DOHMH

Just one example of socialized TB care in the US. Google is your friend.

[Spliffdaddy]

That's not a clinic. That's a bureau. There is no "socialized" TB treatment in the USA no matter how hard you wish it to be true.

You offer a link from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene?

Dude. I've been here for 6 years and I've met thousands of people in these forums. Strangely enough, you're a bit different than all those others. I'm sure I don't have to tell anybody exactly how you're different. I think it's glaringly apparent.

edit: Hate to say it, but Google ain't *your* friend.. If Google could reach through your monitor and bitchslap you, then by God, you'd have a knot on your head.

Sell your Mac. And use the proceeds to buy a clue.

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, the rest of us can continue with our reasonable debate.
I found this little gem that's sort of a long read but it's actually worth reading. In case you weren't aware of the initial cause of our current healthcare situation. This article makes a convincing case. It all started in the mid 1960's. And guess what? It's the government's fault. say it ain't so! Well, the government started it, but 'free-market' conservatives perpetuated the fiasco. So you bleeding hearts can point the finger at conservatives while we point our fingers back at you big-government socialist lefties.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050307&s=relman030705

Also, since nobody else has offered any kind of a common-sense-based solution (or improvement) to the current situation, here's one that almost makes sense. It was written in 2000 by *doctors* (gasp). Like most other solutions it sounds positively orgasmic until it gets to part where you have to fund it.

The US Healthcare System 2010 : Problems, Principles, and Potential Solutions -- Garson 101 (16): 2015 -- Circulation

I found another piece of trivia that was interesting. There are more people employed to prevent fraud and abuse in Medicare/Medicaid than there are healthcare workers providing its services. Gotta love it when the government gets involved in spending money. See also Katrina fraud. It's fair game to rip-off the government, right?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

That's not a clinic. That's a bureau. There is no "socialized" TB treatment in the USA no matter how hard you wish it to be true.

You offer a link from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene?

Dude. I've been here for 6 years and I've met thousands of people in these forums. Strangely enough, you're a bit different than all those others. I'm sure I don't have to tell anybody exactly how you're different. I think it's glaringly apparent.

edit: Hate to say it, but Google ain't *your* friend.. If Google could reach through your monitor and bitchslap you, then by God, you'd have a knot on your head.

Sell your Mac. And use the proceeds to buy a clue.

Oh come on. Give the guy a break. When I followed the link, I found it's a bureau that supports 10 clinics. So I guess you're right - it's not 'a' clinic. It's 10.

Maybe 100% socialized medicine isn't the answer. Maybe it is. peeb's point is, let's say there's a contagious epedemic in the US. You're at risk if you fly on a plane - like SARS, only the real deal. In our current system, 40 million people will remain contagious because they can't get treatment. The CDC has been privatized, and after the first 20 million cases, in the name of profit, the insurance companies have deemed it a 'pre-existing condition'. What do you do?

Or, if the CDC is still public, well, there you go.

The truth, which no one seems to want to rationally discuss (and instead just attack each other back and forth), is somewhere in the middle. There are matters of health that are in the public interest - the solution we come up with has to balance the public interest with individuals' right to obtain the care they want. The government is involved any way you slice it - they set the current rules, so presumably they need to change them if we want to see anythign change.

A lot of Americans want something to change. The burning question is - how many? Is it most of them? There are a lot of powerful interests that don't want to find out...

[Spliffdaddy]

The point has been made literally dozens of times in this thread that health care *IS* available to people who cannot afford it. Sure, you can get TB treatment for free. You can also get treatment for practically ailment whatsoever. That doesn't mean that the treatment for every ailment is "socialized". It means that there are options available to offset the expense of medical care for those that cannot afford it - and for plenty that CAN afford it. TB diagnosis & treatment is no more "socialized" than colorectal cancer or prostate cancer or influenza. Why peeb decided to single-out TB I have no idea. I guess he wanted to add to his growing collection of BS statements. He changes his direction every time he's proven wrong. Something like 8 times in this thread alone.
You've done a lot to help make my point that there is no real need to have the government fund healthcare for everyone. The people who need help can already get it from any number of state and federal agencies. Thanks for citing some examples.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

You've done a lot to help make my point that there is no real need to have the government fund healthcare for everyone. The people who need help can already get it from any number of state and federal agencies. Thanks for citing some examples.

Tell that to the 40 million people who don't have coverage. Or to the thousands more who have been denied a life-saving or otherwise life-improving treatment so some corporation can meet its quarterly numbers. Believe me - I've been there - the last thing you want to do when you're seriously sick is to fight or search to be covered for something.

I think there are some things that need to change. I'd love to see how many Americans also think so. At the very least - decisions about care should be made by DOCTORS, with the burden of proof to deny coverage on the insurance companies. Right now it's the other way around.

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't have medical insurance. And I don't want it. The last thing I want is for the government to require that I pay for it.
Is it too much to ask to be left alone? There are plenty of people like me that do not want government assistance. I'm a role model for how all Americans should live their lives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I asked you what conservative Christians are doing to help people with serious illnesses and no money. I was never being disingenuous. Seems to me like you are overreacting a little bit, a simple "Yes, conservative Christians collect money to pay for the cost of healthcare for others" would have sufficed nicely.

It's not enough to simply throw money at people. People can and do use money unwisely. That's the entire premise of my argument. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Americans spend 10% of their income on entertainment and eating out and 5% on health care. It's even less sensible to me that we would ask for a gigantic government bureaucracy to handle our health care for us when all we have to do is govern our spending a little more wisely in consideration of what we claim is so important to us.

Chill, you can help relieve me of my ignorance on the subject by simply answering the questions, which were never meant to be taken as absurd.

You asked if these outlets pay for "all" the medical treatment these people need? Do they pay for surgeries, medication, etc? Do they pay for all kinds of surgeries or only certain types?
The quick answer is no, but neither does universal health care. There are certain surgeries, treatments, and medications that the governments of those enjoying universal care will not have paid for. This notion that you simply present your universal card no matter what the issue and have full coverage is woefully mistaken. You're expecting standards no one can meet. Least of which, a government entity providing health care. If I seemed urgent in any sense, it's because I was replying to someone using exclamation points to claim that none of the services I mentioned are valuable to someone with terminal cancer and no money. They don't need money. They need care and treatment.

Not all of those deal with problems in the United States (I checked). Simply listing the names of various organizations does not show how these organizations help or who they help.

I don't think I need to exhaust every minute detail as this would also devolve into all those items that other industrialized nations either don't cover at all or don't cover effectively. If you checked, you're aware of what those few I've listed cover and yes; not all are domestic organizations in line with my statement that these organizations are helping people both here and abroad.

Again, I have mentioned numerous times the government pays for the healthcare of a certain group of those who cannot afford it (via medicare and medicaid). However, as it has been discussed, the government could do a whole lot more. If you'd like to do a dollar-for-dollar comparison all you have to do is present data the shows the total value in dollars that your Christian organizations have spent in paying for medical expenses. We can then compare that to what medicare/medicaid spends yearly.

Efficiency is what we're talking about here. Again, the US pays more per student than any other industrialized nation yet ranks 18th among them. More money is not the answer. More money is not the solution. We're already spending more than the industrialized nations on our health care also and I'm assuming you're not happy with how your tax dollar has manifest there or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm sorry to hear that about your mother. You missed my point however, it's not as if I don't realize that a foot rub would be well received with someone confined to a bed for several days or weeks, or that simply the presence of another person there with them would greatly ease their mind. When I said "They need money." I thought it was obvious that I was referring to those who were not lying in a hospital bed undergoing treatment; those people without health insurance.

There are a host of reasons people are without health care and more often than is recognized in this forum, it's not always a matter of money. Many are between jobs and literally millions qualify for health care and don't have it. Most are under 25 years old and too often while they are covered under their parent's plans, because they're not at home they're considered uncovered. The stats on the uninsured in this country are severely bloated and too often to not account for simple choice. A choice we have in the US. Choices you will not find elsewhere.

In my discussions with you in the past you've made it clear to me that you hold many conservative values, I was merely pointing out that some of the statements you were making were not in line with typical conservative values. Yes, I realize that is possible. I would be one the last people on this forum to champion the merits of conservative values, to me that concept is practically an oxymoron.

If my views were not consistent with Conservative values of which you find so distasteful- I suspect a simple; "I totally agree with you" would've sufficed. I wasn't sure of the argument you were trying to make with that sentiment. I'm even less sure now.

While I can't comment on social security (too young to have any experience with it), I can certainly say that you're wrong to present public education as a total failure. I went to an excellent public school, it was better than most private schools in the United States. As you say later on in your post: "Just because you slap the name of a state or a country on a building does not mean bigotry and human nature cannot exist there." This same concept applies for private institutions. Public education can be done right, I have seen it with my own eyes, I am in fact the product of it. To dismiss all of it because of the failures of a subset is short-sighted. Public education has many benefits over private education.

Unfortunately, nation-wide public education is failing hands-down compared to private schooling. There are many reasons for this up to and including more parental involvement and private schools doing a more effective job of soliciting parental help as well as being held more accountable for failure by those paying fees for service.

I would be interested in seeing these statistics, link?

- http://www.imva.org/Pages/orgbio.htm
- http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
- http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi...471860129Guest
- http://www.beaconhill.org/FaxSheets/FaxStxcrdt.html

Again, just a few examples. Seek any economist you wish, the results speak for themselves and it goes a little like lining up 10 people with the 10th being the needy recipient. Pour a cup of water into the 1st person's hand and have them pour the contents of their cupped hands into the cupped hands of #2. Have #2 pour their cupped hands into #3 and so on. By the time you get to #10, there is little if any water left. States have to blow money to continue getting money. Private institutions are held to higher account by those who fund it.

The poor, and even the middle class, as has been expounded in 'Sicko', do not "have health care". One thing is to make that claim, the other is to actually witness it in practice, and in practice many people who thought they were covered realized they were not for a variety of terrible reasons.

Can you cite some examples, links please? I've been severely poor and I had full comprehensive health care. I've been middle class and have had full comprehensive care. I'm now upper-middle and have full comprehensive health care. Again, with discounted rates, free services, medicare, medicaid, HSAs, and a host of other programs, charities, and health organizations there is no reason to be without care. Once again, there are millions who are eligible for health care and don't have it. Why?

What I am talking about looks good on paper and when implemented correctly, in real life as well. Universal healthcare exists in a variety of different forms throughout the industrialized world, the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't have it, and because of that 18,000 people die every year in this country.

Over 100,000 people die every year because of health care. Did you know this? Again, it's not enough to say _______ people die. People are supposed to die. Not to sound cold, but how many thousands die due to vehicle accidents, ham sandwiches, golf clubs, and baseball bats? How many people die because they don't go to the hospital when they feel chest pain? How many people die because they had unprotected sex? How many people die because they didn't look both ways before crossing the streets. You might know, 18,000 by any comparison you wish to use, is an extremely small number.

Honestly, I was trying to do that. However, you've made it clear to me that they do a significant amount of work. I'm a person who did not grow up in a Christian family, nor have I attended very many Christian functions or charities. When I asked you those "absurd questions" it was because I genuinely did not know the answer to them.

If you were genuinely curious about any of this; "Or does he not matter because the heretic is going to burn in hell for eternity anyway?" is a really disingenuous way of going about it. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to present serious arguments. This is quite clearly the result of a chip and no genuine interest in anything other than digging at someone who happens to have a philosophical world-view that differs from your own. Ironically, I'm guessing you believe Christians are the template of intolerance and persecution.

My exposure to Christianity (and Catholicism) has given me a very negative impression of the religion, at least the common version of it that is taught to most Christians.

You mean you're admittedly "limited" exposure.

For the most part, the Christians that I have encountered (be it in person or through the news, eg. G. W. Bush) have not been generous or tolerant people. For the most part these so-called "Christians" do not follow the principles of tolerance and kindness of their "personal lord and savior" Jesus Christ.

... and neither do you. In fact, you're not even following your own principles with your line of questioning. I think a little introspect is in order. For someone who doesn't buy into religion, you certainly hold them in high regard with your expectations. This is why I ask what your moral authority is. Apparently, it doesn't have any more weight than a god.

For example, on a fairly regular basis I will walk through my university's campus square and witness several Christians holding up massive signs saying various horrible things. I remember one of them distinctly, it went something along these lines: "Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Homosexuals, Hindus ... [don't remember all of them] ... REPENT!! OR SUFFER ETERNAL DAMNATION!" I talked to one of these people and he flat out told me that according to his religion if you do not "accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior" then you will spend the rest of eternity being tortured in hell. Needless to say, it seems plain to me that this is a very stupid, primitive concept. Do you disagree?

Absolutely not. I would be first in line to address them one on one and challenge them on their legalism. It would take me 5 minutes and a Bible to have them crying in their combat boots. They're certainly not following any biblical principle with the above, least of which the teachings of Christ. There are all types anywhere from green-peace rallies in which violence breaks out leaving hundreds of pounds of litter and waste in their midst to gay rallies in which Christianity is mocked ignorantly. This does not mean I hold homosexuals in low regards because of a vocal minority among them. Enlightenment is understanding the diversity of human nature and discerning right from wrong, not right from left.

Perhaps you might see now why I asked you those questions.

A chip on your shoulder, yes.

Well, they haven't been doing a perfect job in that case.

You're welcome to list any perfect organizations below...

All I've been saying this entire time is that I strongly feel that the government is in a far better position to properly handle the issue of healthcare than any other entity, be it a business or the Church. As long as it is implemented correctly of course.

I disagree and have a wealth of history and data to support my claim.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Oh come on. Give the guy a break. When I followed the link, I found it's a bureau that supports 10 clinics. So I guess you're right - it's not 'a' clinic. It's 10.

Thank you. All I am asking here is that we recognize the facts. Nearly all (and there are many) TB clinics in the US are government owned or funded. The system works well. I am unsure whether those wanting to deny this are ignorant or deliberately misleading, but it does not advance the debate to dispute obvious facts in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

TB diagnosis & treatment is no more "socialized" than colorectal cancer or prostate cancer or influenza.

Wrong. Hardly any private for profit hospitals treat TB.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Why peeb decided to single-out TB I have no idea.

It is one example of successful socialized healthcare in the US. Nearly all TB treatment in the US is fully govt owned or funded.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

He changes his direction every time he's proven wrong. Something like 8 times in this thread alone.

That's one of the more brazen lies you've told.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

There is no real need to have the government fund healthcare for everyone. The people who need help can already get it from any number of state and federal agencies.

And that's one of the most stupid statements you've made. "We don't need socialized healthcare in the areas where private insurance isn't working, because socialized healthcare works so well where we have it!" Poor Spliff.

[besson3c]

A recent Krugman NYTimes article pointed out that while many people on the pro-privatized side of this debate use the expediency of hip replacement in the US compared to Canada as ammo in their arguments, they fail to realize that most hip surgery replacements are paid for by Medicare in this country, so we are basically comparing our public system to Canada's public system.

Also, he pointed out that in many cases there are significant wait times in this country as well, particularly for non-elective surgeries.

We are just knee deep in misinformation with this issue. I'm not suggesting that Krugman is correct here because I don't know this for certain, but it is easy to see that there are just mountains of myths and distortion.

The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, which is where I would like for this country to aim.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A recent Krugman NYTimes article pointed out that while many people on the pro-privatized side of this debate use the expediency of hip replacement in the US compared to Canada as ammo in their arguments, they fail to realize that most hip surgery replacements are paid for by Medicare in this country, so we are basically comparing our public system to Canada's public system.

Also, he pointed out that in many cases there are significant wait times in this country as well, particularly for non-elective surgeries.

We are just knee deep in misinformation with this issue. I'm not suggesting that Krugman is correct here because I don't know this for certain, but it is easy to see that there are just mountains of myths and distortion.

The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, which is where I would like for this country to aim.

Right. People want to deny that there is a very effective (if limited) socialized healthcare system in the US. The debate is simply over the precise number of people who should be covered, and how to ensure equitable access to everyone who wants it, not whether to have it.