Thread: Medicine

Originally Posted by Bruno

Sorry for the OT, but I don't understand.
How is state government any different from federal government?
I mean, I understand the difference, but why would state managed be much better than federally managed?

it's smaller, more concerned with it's constituents (usually) and far less idealogically offensive. in America, the states are semi-autonomous (or at least they should be, according to the 10th Amendment) because they have all the power except as explicitly granted to the federal government. this is not observed as much as I would like, but is an important safeguard.

ETA: what i'm trying to say here is that it should not be managed by the federal government because the 10thA specifies it should be managed by each state, if at all.

Originally Posted by jockeys

ETA: what i'm trying to say here is that it should not be managed by the federal government because the 10thA specifies it should be managed by each state, if at all.

Ah ok sorry I didn't get that. I didn't know that this difference played so much.
In that case I partially agree with you.
I do believe in socialized healthcare, but state level is probably the best way to have it organized for the USA.
By the same token, I am happy that my healthcare is organized by the Belgian government, and not the european government.

The confusion for me stemmed from the fact that the US seems to be partially a republic (a bit like the EU) and partially a country.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The confusion for me stemmed from the fact that the US seems to be partially a republic (a bit like the EU) and partially a country.

Thanks.

I'd still rather not have anyone other than myself responsible for my healthcare, but if I'm going to lose my liberty to a government, I would rather it be my state.

In Canada health care is federally legislated, but managed by the provinces.

Private services will still be available to you if you wish and almost certainly at reduced cost and improved service once the free for all starts.

X

Originally Posted by xman

In Canada health care is federally legislated, but managed by the provinces.

Private services will still be available to you if you wish and almost certainly at reduced cost and improved service once the free for all starts.

X

Outside of Quebec the legality of privately provided medicine is in limbo. We could very well end up with our sick in jails because they sought better, more affordable care from the Invisible Hand instead of the State that cares more about statistics and rankings than it does about people.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

.

Originally Posted by jockeys

.

I think I understand your point of view, and you mine.
We have arrived at the point where we have to agree to disagree, because further discussion would be a repetition of everything that has been said so far.
Thanks guys.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The confusion for me stemmed from the fact that the US seems to be partially a republic (a bit like the EU) and partially a country.

Thanks.

A lot of Europeans make this mistake.

In fact the US is a republic, very much likes the EU, with member states most of which are as large as and as populous as many EU member countries.

Now envision trying to enact a EU wide Health care plan that seems fair to everyone.

While Americans spend an enormous amount of money on medical care,
Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings
they certainly don't get their bang for their buck.
Health system attainment and performance in all Member States

The facts just don't support the ideology behind rugged individualism. It appears that although it is easy to sell "You rise by your own ability", it more accurately plays out as "You'll sink beneath a lack of care". Societies certainly do fail on the merits of their weakest links. If the society doesn't pay to help the less fortunate, they'll end up paying more on the results of the social dysfunction created. Americans are sold a bill of goods against Health Care and it will continue to bite them in the @$$ if nothing is done about it. Read E. A. Poe's The Masque of the Red Death.

X

This is for jockeys:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”

This statement of high principle was adopted at the urging of the United States, and although it reflects the truths of our nation’s founding documents, our government has achieved neither formal recognition nor practical realization of these rights. Mass homelessness and the escalating health care crisis in the US are compelling evidence of our disregard for human rights. Sadly, our country is but one of many nations where grave offenses against the dignity of human beings are commonplace, and global enforcement of human rights remains a distant goal. In the US, however, the twin advantages of democratic institutions and great wealth provide the opportunity for our nation to implement the principles human rights. Implementation of human rights principles will lead inexorably to the elimination of mass homelessness.

A useful summary of the international agreements that establish and codify the human right to health care, entitled “The Right to Health Care in the United States: What Does it Mean?” has been published by the Center on Social and Economic Rights.

I am in a position of bias, because as a Paramedic, I see people go through completely unnecessary pain and suffering as a result of the blatant disregard of human rights and concern for fellow human beings.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Now envision trying to enact a EU wide Health care plan that seems fair to everyone.

Or, envision trying to shut down such a lofty effort before the discussion even gets off the ground!