March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
1 members (eightbore), 827 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,014
Members14,391
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 22 of 28 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 27 28
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
OP Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Virtually all of the universal health care plans in Europe cost less, cover more citizens and show better outcomes than America's private insurance-driven 'system'. Based on personal experience with health care in the UK and France, I'd be satisfied with either. But I'd take any EU plan over the exorbitant, inequitable, inefficient, red-tape-tangled mess we have here.

However, each nation's plan is different. For example, medical treatment in the UK is free; in France there is a nominal charge. Each plan has different options for supplemental private coverage. Each plan has different methods of funding, within different systems of government. And each is designed around the needs, national concerns, health care infrastructure, social traditions and democratic will of the public which supports it.

Problem is, you can't buy just a national health care system - you have to take the government, the culture and the country that goes with it. And you have to live there. So it is absurd to expect anyone to say which is "the best" health plan for someone else, any more than one can say which car is best for someone else, or which shotgun, or which wife, or which place to live.

Universal health plans are tremendously complex (as are our private insurance plans). Asking an individual for simple apples-to-apples comparisons is, frankly, simple minded. It took the World Health Organization whole teams of medical consultants, actuaries, accountants, statisticians, political advisers and economists sifting through mountains of data to analyze them in 2000, and they are all in a state of continual development.

But if America ever acknowledges basic health care as a citizen's right - as do all the other major nations of the earth - this nation has the skills and manpower to study the successes of countries which have been ahead of us for decades. To see which parts would work best within our system of government. And to craft a universal health care system that fits America's needs.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
You can name it, Lowell. The US has been our oldest and closest friend.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
OP Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
...nothing you've said to this point is of any real value at all, unless you're willing to get behind A SPECIFIC PLAN.


Originally Posted By: L. Brown
Wow . . . asking for "a specific plan" is a STRAWMAN?


"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted." http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html

My position is that universal health care is generally better than what the US has now. And I have provided data to prove it.

You argue that my position has no value without proposing "A SPECIFIC PLAN." "A SPECIFIC PLAN" is your straw man fallacy, Larry.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
BS, Jack. Both Hillary and Obama offer SPECIFIC plans (neither of which you like). You're trying to sell us on the CONCEPT of universal health care, while admitting that there are BAD universal health care plans out there--like, in your opinion, both Clinton's and Obama's. (And I doubt you'd say the one under which the Soviet Union operated for 70+ years was all that good either.) Therefore, "generally better" clearly doesn't cut it. The devil remains in the details . . . which is why you keep encountering all the universal health care skeptics.

In order to sell universal health care to the American public, it has to be demonstrated that not only is the CONCEPT superior to what we have now, but that whatever SPECIFIC PLAN is being offered us is an improvement. And the fact is, you are in partial agreement with those Americans who oppose universal health care: you too are against Hillarycare and Obamacare. To convince the skeptics, therefore, you need to go beyond the general concept and get down to a specific plan. Show them what it will give them, what it will cost them, and tell them why it's better than what we have now. As simple as that--or as complicated as that.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
OP Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
BS, Jack.

Very mature, Larry.
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
..it has to be demonstrated that not only is the CONCEPT superior to what we have now, but that whatever SPECIFIC PLAN is being offered us is an improvement.

That's where your straw man fallacy falls apart - you try to refute a general proposition by demanding a "SPECIFIC PLAN" which has never been suggested. It's a flimsy tactic, Larry, usually deployed by losers in the logic game.
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
...the fact is, you are in partial agreement with those Americans who oppose universal health care: you too are against Hillarycare and Obamacare.

Another fallacy. Opposing HillaryCare and ObamaCare is not "opposing universal health care." That's like saying being against Al Qaeda puts me in "partial agreement" with Americans who oppose Islam.

I do oppose ObamaCare and HillaryCare, because both keep the rapacious US private health insurers in control. Ever wonder why health costs are driving US companies overseas? Here's what the top HMO execs were making 12 years ago:

The 10 Highest Paid HMO Executives 1996 Annual Compensation
(Exclusive of Unexercised Stock Options)

Stephen Wiggins, CEO, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $29,061,599
Wilson Taylor, Chairman and CEO, CIGNA Corporation $11,568,410
David Snow, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $10,403,451
Robert Smoler, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $10,085,972
William Sullivan, President, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. $7,823,076
Joseph Sebastianelli, President, Aetna, Inc. $7,394,506
Michael Cardillo, Executive VP, Aetna, Inc. $7,069,969
Leonard Schaeffer, CEO, WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. $7,010,698
George Jochum, CEO, Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. $6,526,065
Ronald Compton, CEO, Aetna, Inc. $5,813,287

http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm

Managing health care for maximum profit is the problem, not the solution. And I have shown that government management, in the US (i.e., Medicare) as well as abroad, is more efficient and equitable.

We would be better off with most of the European single-payer, universal health care plans. If you feel a need to identify which is better, the World Health Organization Report 2000 is probably the most comprehensive indicator. Check out Annex 10, page 200: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf

France and Italy rank #1 and #2. The US ranks #37, not quite as high as Costa Rica. But hey, we're better than Slovenia! That should make you feel proud.


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
BTW many health care ins. and HMO companies are organized as non-profits. Because of this they can/must pass on the profits to a few officers; there is no stockholder scrutiny. Anything left over can be used for "public sevice" - they give to true charities to promote their messages that they are helping us. Once again the evils of the income tax at work.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Jack, where do you see me trying to "refute a general proposition"? All I've said--and with which, by the way, you agree--is that the "general proposition" of universal health care does not mean that each and every universal health care plan is a good one. (See, once again, your own disapproval of the Obama and Clinton plans.) So what you're trying your best to do, Jack, is to sell a "general proposition" which may well not be generally beneficial in its specific implementation. That's why I'm asking for a specific plan--because you've already admitted that simply buying into the general proposition does not automatically lead to a good universal health care plan. (Reference, once more, Obama and Clinton.)

You're offering us a poke without describing the pig concealed therein. Please describe the pig if you expect to make the sale.

As for BS, I know it when I smell it. It's a bit different from HS (substitute hog for bull), with which I'm quite familiar, living as I do within half a mile of two large hog confinements. But pretty much the same odor wafts from the nonspecific pig concealed within the poke you're touting.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
**
OP Offline
Member
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
...what you're trying your best to do, Jack, is to sell a "general proposition"...

Originally Posted By: L. Brown
...nothing you've said to this point is of any real value at all...

Originally Posted By: L. Brown
Jack, where do you see me trying to "refute a general proposition"?

Hoist by your own pétard, Larry.
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
As for BS, I know it when I smell it. It's a bit different from HS (substitute hog for bull), with which I'm quite familiar, living as I do within half a mile of two large hog confinements. But pretty much the same odor wafts from the nonspecific pig concealed within the poke you're touting.

You really know how to show your class, Larry! If that's the level of discourse you choose to descend to, I can see no purpose in further discussion with you. As the Irish say, "there's no point in wrestling with a pig, because you both get dirty - and the pig enjoys it!"


Sample my new book at http://www.theweemadroad.com
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362
Jack,
I have followed your words and have watched as the discussion went from informative to its present state. I can not jump on your train at this time since all that you profess is based on your interpretation of a multitude of articales, which must be accepted as you interpret them. I have read enough of the written word and about those that have combined their talent in writing the pieces to be suspect of your interpretation. I find that even my interpretation may not be absolutely correct but foutunately as an adult I don't find the need to justify it to anyone. Good luck on your crusade to convert others. I'm off to shoot.
Best,
Ron

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Ron, thank god we don't agree on everything here; that would be my notion of hell. I take a contrary view to yours. I found nothing polemical or diffused by ideology in jack's messages. He cited the evidence. The evidence wasn't cherry-picked to support his opinion of universal health care. None here faulted the evidence. Jack's presentation of evidence from the world's most distinguished sources has been a solid contribution to the debate, however we may feel either way. I thank him for it. Regards, King

Page 22 of 28 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 27 28

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.065s Queries: 35 (0.044s) Memory: 0.8699 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 06:13:09 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS