Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 09:22:38 AM
You cannot however anticipate needing open heart surgery, pay for an MRI machine, a hospital, surgeons, nurses, blah blah blah. It is an service, often an emergency service, that needs to be provided collectively and therefore paid for collectively, as and when it is needed. That is a big difference, between shoes, burgers and medical care.

Yes, and that's what health insurance is about. And you can predict it somewhat. That's why health insurance costs more for the elderly than for a young person who's far less likely to have a heart attack and a number of other unexpected condition. And I don't buy all the machines that made all the food in the grocery store. That's paid for collectively in a free market. You're still not making the case for why this particular service needs to be provided by governments; that it's actually immoral for it not to be.

Quote
I have to agree with you Cindy. When you have a service that is collectively paid for and collectively accessed, particularly one that is an emergency service, a life or death service, I don't understand how you can justify taking that service and having individualised access based on ability to pay.

It's not. It's illegal to deny emergency care. Like I said, you might get a depressing bill later but they can't just turn you away. A lot of those bills just get ignored or negotiated into a long-term payment plan, sometimes SO long-term that it will never get fully paid off. The company just collects what it can and writes off the rest as a business loss.

For those who say it's immoral for those who have resources to not share them with those in need, I understand that. It's why I have worked so many volunteer hours, probably far, far more than 99% of the population. I didn't have much extra money but I had extra time. Despite several government shelters with huge budgets, there were a couple of deaths of homeless people in my small city due to the cold and it inspired a guy to do something about it HIMSELF with his own time and money. He inspired me to be amongst his first group of volunteers. But why do you feel okay with forcing your morality onto others through governments? We rightfully don't approve when Christians use government to force their morality onto us.

Charities used to be huge in the U.S. They've declined exponentially as governments took over for providing for those in need. Charity is a tiny fraction of what it once was. I think that's sad. It's like a machine taking over for what used to be something very personal. We've lost a chunk of our souls to the machine.

I'm certainly not implying in any way the good we do as individuals is wasted or unwanted or wishing in any way to be insulting or imply what we have is perfect. More my intent was to provide discussion on alternative health models.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
It's not. It's illegal to deny emergency care.

So in the US, you would not treat somebodies diabetes, but wait until the go into hyperglycaemic shock and treat that? If that is the case, I am afraid that is point enough for me personally to find a collective payment and universal access system superior.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 09:41:58 AM
But why do you feel okay with forcing your morality onto others through governments?

I wasn't aware I was forcing my morals on anyone :-) Actually, you will find that it is just funding that we are talking about. It's not like they drag you off to the Dr and force heyfever tablets down your neck :-)  Treatment is funded, not obligatory.

Oh, and I in no way think our system is perfect either, I just prefer it. I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who need treating get it, without question of whether they can afford it.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 10:00:12 AM
So in the US, you would not treat somebodies diabetes, but wait until the go into hyperglycaemic shock and treat that? If that is the case, I am afraid that is point enough for me personally to find a collective payment and universal access system superior.

There are ways to do that other than having governments take over the healthcare industry and they've been in practice already. There have been many sources of healthcare that are funded through governments and charity that provide such services to people who can't otherwise afford them. In the debate about socialize healthcare, when they say X percentage of people have no healthcare, what they really mean is those people don't have insurance. So many of these points are (accidental) straw-man arguments, i.e. people aren't straw-manning on purpose but they are effectively presenting straw-man arguments because they don't fully understand the situation.

Quote
I wasn't aware I was forcing my morals on anyone :-) Actually, you will find that it is just funding that we are talking about.

They're being forced to pay for it through governments. If they refuse, they will ultimately be dragged off to jail forcefully. A particular* Christian's morality might include avoiding "sodomy" and not allowing gay marriages but they shouldn't force those practices on others through governments. Another person's morality might include being charitable and many are okay with forcing others to be charitable through taxation. If the latter is up for a vote, then I have no logical basis for arguing that the former shouldn't be up for a vote also.

*I say "particular" because I don't want to lump all Christians together in a sweeping manner.

This says a lot about Hobby Lobby:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/investing/hobby-lobby-401k-contraception/

[Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug.]

It never ceases to amaze me how much time people waste bickering about things that won't ever affect them in any way.

Here's what well known Democrat and constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz has to say about it:

"[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby] is a monumentally insignificant case. Why is it insignificant? First of all, it was not a constitutional decision, it was a construction of a statute.

Second, the effect will be that not a single woman will be denied contraceptive care, birth control care, the opinion made it clear that there are alternatives by which the women can get adequate contraceptive care, and won't be burdened in any way."

Moreover any uninsured person in the US including non citizens can walk into any publicly funded hospital, (i.e.. County hospital) and be treated free of charge.

Quote from: dalebert on July 04, 2014, 10:09:13 AM
They're being forced to pay for it through governments. If they refuse, they will ultimately be dragged off to jail forcefully. A particular* Christian's morality might include avoiding "sodomy" and not allowing gay marriages but they shouldn't force those practices on others through governments. Another person's morality might include being charitable and many are okay with forcing others to be charitable through taxation. If the latter is up for a vote, then I have no logical basis for arguing that the former shouldn't be up for a vote also.

*I say "particular" because I don't want to lump all Christians together in a sweeping manner.

So do you have similar views for bin emptying, street cleaning, policing and the military? :-) Everyone uses them, they are state funded through taxes; should they be privatised and individualised based on who can pay? - "Sorry, I am not interested if you have been assaulted unless you have a credit card with you".

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 09:03:57 AM
...............................
It is such an overcomplicated disaster that there's a belief from parts of both left and right here that the whole thing was actually deliberately set up as a flaming catastrophe which would set the stage for single-payer so we could get something which works as well as the healthcare we provide our veterans, which has long been the yardstick of how the U.S. government makes single-payer work.   

Correction: recent reports have shown that system is riddled with major flaws.

Traditionally when our federal government gets involved in anything the legislation becomes so complicated that everything becomes a matter of interpretation and the costs increase drastically. Exceptions or additions for every politician envolved are included. No good system requires the extreme number of pages of legislation that are included in the "Obama Care" legislation. In addition volumes of interpretations, which further complicate the process, have already been implemented. Nothing is clear and simple, every situation becomes a matter of interpretation.

The whole system is totally flawed. Several people have lost their health coverage and their doctor, and have incurred greater costs.  They were assured in advance that they would be able to keep their own private plans and their current doctor if they choose to do so.

You can always be assured that when our federal government gets involved in anything they are certain to complicate the process, make the situation worse, and DEFINATELY INCREASE THE COST OF THE SERVICE.  Both at the state and local level many public services are being privatized resulting with better service at a lower cost. The free market increases quality and efficiency and usually at a lower cost.

Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on July 04, 2014, 10:01:45 AM
Oh, and I in no way think our system is perfect either, I just prefer it. I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who need treating get it, without question of whether they can afford it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's nothing to prefer there.  EMTAALA guarantees this throughout the United States and has for decades.  Hospitals are explicitly prohibited from refusing service based on ability to pay until they have adequately stabilized the patient.  They can't even talk to you about payment until you're stabilized from an emergent condition.  I routinely see people get entire courses of chemo when they can't pay for it.  I'm baffled about how a woman in Nevada just died because Obamacare couldn't process her premiums and pay for cancer treatment when indigent people all around me get the treatment she needed all the time.   

Quote from: mac1 on July 04, 2014, 11:33:39 AM
Correction: recent reports have shown that system is riddled with major flaws.

I didn't say it wasn't killing veterans left and right while lying about everything it was doing, I just said it was clear and undeniable evidence of how well the U.S. government runs single-payer. 

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 08:46:18 AM
I'd actually say he's got it backwards:

If the public funds charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse is not required.
If the public refuses to fund charity well enough to meet requirements, government largesse has no mandate.

It's actually moot in the United States, as in either case the government is simply not authorized.   

When he says no need for charity, he means that there would be no issues in society that exist that would require any input.

For example, if the system worked poverty wouldn't exist.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 04, 2014, 11:54:18 AM
When he says no need for charity, he means that there would be no issues in society that exist that would require any input.

For example, if the system worked poverty wouldn't exist.

I think we'd all be happy if nobody ever had to go outside the family unit for help.  Services, yes; help, no. 

Not wishing to derail the thread, though this has nothing to do with the Hobby Lobby Op-ed. But in response to all the stone throwing about whose system is best.

My Brother-in-law is a British citizen, he flew to London to visit his aged ailing mum in the NHS hospital. The place was filthy and the relatives had to bring her food and fresh clothing as it wasn't provided as part of the care, when he returned to the US he applied for US citizenship and vowed not to ever return. This along with the continuing ongoing traffic from Canada to get treatment in the Seattle area hospitals makes a pretty undeniably grim comment about government run healthcare programs.

Being a US military veteran I have enjoyed pretty good treatment at the local VA healthcare facility and have no complaints so far, but I do know of documented screw ups at other VA facilities, one instance was when the surgeon removed the wrong leg of a patient that had bone cancer. The other was when several patients became HIV positive after having colonoscopies performed with improperly sanitized equipment.

Quote from: Shantel on July 04, 2014, 12:52:34 PM
Not wishing to derail the thread,......................

This along with the continuing ongoing traffic from Canada to get treatment in the Seattle area hospitals makes a pretty undeniably grim comment about government run healthcare programs.

The same situation is present in Detroit with people comming to the United States from Windsor.

Quote from: Colleen M on July 04, 2014, 12:06:24 PM
I think we'd all be happy if nobody ever had to go outside the family unit for help.  Services, yes; help, no. 

I said nothing about how it would be achieved, or anything about family unit. How to fix the issues with the system is a whole different very in depth conversation. That would be best continued elsewhere due to topic reasons i guess.

Quote from: Shantel on July 04, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how much time people waste bickering about things that won't ever affect them in any way.

Here's what well known Democrat and constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz has to say about it:

"[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby] is a monumentally insignificant case. Why is it insignificant? First of all, it was not a constitutional decision, it was a construction of a statute.
...

It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

NOTHING the Supreme Court ever does is "insignificant".

Quote from: Dee Walker on July 04, 2014, 02:23:48 PM
It's not insignificant, it's a precident. President Obama has already received a letter from conservative Christian business men saying that they should be exempt from his executive order requiring them to not discriminate against, among others, us, because it infringes upon their religious liberties.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/religious-groups-lgbt-hiring-hobby-lobby

NOTHING the Supreme Court ever does is "insignificant".

I'm not sure that would get any traction, but what I am sure about as a Christian is that it appears that some of these self anointed bigots are simply trying to hide under the religious shield as they perpetrate their un-American and un-Christian agenda against LGBT folks. And the reason I say this is simply based in the understanding that what they are doing is in diametric opposition to the will of Christ who said, "He who is with me gathers, and he who is against me scatters!" I'm not religious, just a believer who knows what the word says backwards and forwards and I resent anyone or any organization misrepresenting the will of Christ as it applies to all living human beings.

You keep distorting the basic point of the arguement. Lobby Hobby provides for basic birth control items for both men and women. However, they refuse to provide medical insurance for various items which are viewed as abortion drugs or procedures. Those items are still available through other supplemental insurance or private payment. THEY ARE NOT LIMITING THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO THOSE ITEMS.

Mac1 this is a quote from the initial post in this thread.

Quote from: Olivia P on July 02, 2014, 05:40:21 AM
As a queer woman, it makes me want to shake every LGBT person who doesn't see the broader implications of this. What if a company could tell employees that they won't pay for insurance that covers HIV treatment or health care to transgender people because of owners' "sincerely held religious beliefs"? Justice Samuel Alito, in writing the majority opinion, promised its scope was "very specific." Still, some of us side with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and foresee a potential onslaught of legal challenges testing the limits.

More: http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/07/01/op-ed-hobby-lobby-and-constitutional-right-be-stupid

Do you still struggle to see how concerns about possible further implications of this ruling are a core part of the scope of discussion here?