Thanks for the responses. Was far too tired when I came across the post with those links, but the average healthcare argument still stood out.
Surlethe wrote:
They could argue that on average the health care might be better. Of course, that reminds me of the analogy - stand with one foot in a bucket of ice and one foot in a bucket of boiling water; on average, you're enjoying a nice bath!
That's a keeper, for sure.
You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who believes in a distinction between luxury items, and necessary items. These people don't think in terms of what's necessary and what's not; to them, everything is a consumer product.
That's actually what came up in the thread I found those links. To some involved, the lack of elective surgery coverage in socialised healthcare sounded awful (I hear some people in America have minor operations to lengthen their holidays... or something), and the idea that the US was poor at healthcare was equally abhorrent. They couldn't fathom that the coverage and fairness mattered, since no one disputes the US having second to none R&D in medicare.
Stas Bush wrote:The pleasure of having sex does not reduce your life unless it's unprotected sex which gives you a high STD risk; ergo, a failing of the health care system (in the "preventive care" and "sanitary culture" spheres). The "pleasure" of smoking is ridiculous. By the same reasoning the "pleasure" of heroin in a land of addicts shouldn't impact the country's rating in health. That's bullshit. Eating is healthy, unless you eat junk foods. It's not a problem of healthcare par se, but it's a problem of bad food quality. Playing sports actually improves your health.
Unhealthy habits of a population sure should give you a bad rank. It's a problem of public healthcare, because the system of preventive care is also centered around creating a culture of health in the populace.
...
Overall level of pop health is a result of the performance of social institutions in the past, health inequalities are bad, and large financial burden on people is also bad. So I'm not sure what the hell are these funny tobacco apologists ranting about
I'm not attacking the WHO's method of ranking national healthcare systems, but you seem to be saying that the US's average life expectancy is disproportionately low due to failures in "preventative care" and "sanitary culture". How are these necessarily affected by the presence of a single payer universal healthcare system (which I assume you're an advocate of)?
In other words, couldn't the US raise it's WHO ranking without necessarily implementing the aforementioned system?
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Regular medical check-ups are the first line of defence in preventative care and sanitary culture. You go to the doctor, he says you need to start doing/stop doing whatever, and that is it. If people don't regularly go to doctors for check-ups (because they can't afford it), then they miss the early, easiest chance of detecting something wrong before more severe symptoms start popping up.
Allowing people to afford to go for regular check-ups means that more people will get diagnosed before whatever ailment they have worsens.
Shrooms: It's interesting that the taste of blood is kind of irony.
True. Mind, for a large population, preventive spending is not a cost-saver (CBO [PDF version]). This is not an indictment of the point that it results in a healthier population, but instead pointing out that a healthier population would probably come at a net cost.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
That CBO report looks only at the cost to the medical system itself, and not the cost to society at large. The cost to society at large must also calculate the economic benefit of a healthier workforce.
As an aside, the CBO report you mentioned is a good indicator of why preventive medicine makes more sense for socialized medicine than it does for privatized medicine. Privatized medicine providers would logically prefer to save money on preventive care, knowing that many of the people who get sick as a result of inadequate preventive care will either not require enough care or will die too quickly to overwhelm the cost savings. Socialized medicine, on the other hand, is run as a societal imperative and must therefore consider the social benefit of a healthier society, as well as the economic impact.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:The second source is even more of a joke. They claim that murder rates and traffic accidents easily account for the low life expectancy in the US, but they provide no numbers to support this assertion.
The real irony there is that this guy, while arguing against the WHO methodology, inadvertently helps to strengthen Micheal Moore's basic argument about that American society is overly violent and is institutionally insensitive to the well being of its citizens. And the Census Bureau data he cites doesn't exactly help him out either, if anything it demonstrates the need for health care reform. Apparently, 45 million people choose to go without insurance, at least according to this moron.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
Patrick Degan wrote:Gov. McDonnell really needs to have a talk with John C. Calhoun about how successful this whole nullification of federal laws business is likely to be.
Seriously, and given my limited knowledge of politics, how often do political opponents put up challenges like this expecting to win? Is there any chance that they entirely expect to be challenged and lose, but are doing it anyway to make a public point?
Possibly. In purely legal terms, anyway, the case is actually interesting: the 10th amendment says that all rights not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states. As I understand it, the federal government will argue something like this: since health care and health insurance are cross-state businesses, they are entitled by the interstate commerce clause to regulate the health insurance industry, which includes forcing people to buy insurance. The states (not just VA, but also several others - I believe IN is among them) will probably argue something like this: not enough people buy insurance across state lines for the federals to claim jurisdiction within the states' territories, or the federal government is not entitled to regulate people who are not currently purchasing interstate health care, or something like that.
I think their strongest argument rests with the public/private nature of the individual mandate. Yes, there's constitutional precedent for mandating that individuals pay into public, federally administered programs (social security, medicare), but what's unprecedented is the mandate that individuals buy private commodities or face a tax penalty. I guess it depends on how the republican lawyers are going to try and define health insurance. I'm not sure, but I think that health insurance hasn't exactly been legally defined as a tradeable private commodity in the past, so the republicans would be redifining it a bit if they pursued this approach. That's at least according to my very rudimentary understanding of commodities law as it relates to health care.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
irishmick79 wrote:I think their strongest argument rests with the public/private nature of the individual mandate. Yes, there's constitutional precedent for mandating that individuals pay into public, federally administered programs (social security, medicare), but what's unprecedented is the mandate that individuals buy private commodities or face a tax penalty. I guess it depends on how the republican lawyers are going to try and define health insurance. I'm not sure, but I think that health insurance hasn't exactly been legally defined as a tradeable private commodity in the past, so the republicans would be redifining it a bit if they pursued this approach. That's at least according to my very rudimentary understanding of commodities law as it relates to health care.
Not if you've read the Second Militia Act of 1792 it isn't. The act mandated that all citizens of a certain age purchase at their own expense a musket and supporting items. I've heard pundits make the argument that the individual mandate is like requiring people to purchase a GM car. Well, the Militia Act did just that.
Not to mention the fact that the Republicans are not making the argument in good faith, since the last round for health care reform included an individual mandate at the Republican's urging. Their counter to this is essentially, "Well, it wasn't unconstitutional when we did it, but now it is!."
