doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Presidential candidate supports INDIVIDUAL RKBA

Have a friend, was head of surgery in a hospital. She stopped to save the life of a man in car accident. Saved his life. He sued her and got a settlement from her insurance. She quit. Now rides horses and enjoys life. Not so interested in saving anyone anymore.

Is there an internal contradiction here?

There is no question that our politicians--the people that make the decisions where government involvement in health care is concerned--have done very little to actually move us in the direction of universal health care. The Clintons' attempt, early on in the first Clinton Administration, fell flat on its face. And that was with the Democrats in control of the White House as well as Congress. In this election, it's once more a key issue, with both Obama and Clinton touting their plans as the best way to go.

So let's say that the American people, the majority of whom don't look at issues in any great detail (unfortunately), are sold on the general concept of universal health care--which is what Jack is promoting in this thread. (Not sure how we got here from a thread with a title leading one to believe that it had to do with the 2nd Amendment . . . maybe only very healthy people should own guns!) Come November, the choice is between either Obama or Clinton and their plans for universal health care on the one hand, and McCain on the other--whose proposals on health care are far less sweeping, more or less nibbling around the edges of the issue. If enough Americans buy into the concept that universal health care=great idea, without understanding that not all universal health care plans are good, much less great . . . we might end up electing a president who will move us in the wrong direction on health care. The devil, folks, remains in the details. And since Jack himself, who's advocating the general concept of universal health care, tells us that he likes neither Hillarycare nor Obamacare . . . well, I'm going to remain a skeptical American and look beyond that general concept before I jump on anyone's bandwagon. I know most voters probably won't do that, but I certainly wish they would. And they may wish they had, if we end up with either the Clinton or the Obama plan.

It all reminds me of a theme in the recent (and excellent) movie, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" There's a campaign for governor going on, and the incumbent isn't a very admirable fellow. His opponent is Homer Stokes, "the reform candidate". A lot of voters know they need reform--government almost always does, after all--but Stokes is none too clear about the details of his "reform" policies. And fortunately for the good citizens of the state, before the election takes place, Stokes' true qualities are revealed--and it turns out that the incumbent, feet of clay and all, is a better choice. It's an excellent parable, demonstrating why voters need to examine the details involved in the implementation of any very general concept, whether it be "reform" or "universal health care".

Jack, I don't think tort reform is in conflict with the free market. One of my examples above shows clearly how malpractise suits can interfere with the free market by reducing choice in medical care providers creating less competition. Tort reform would simply set standards for reasonable awards. In Mississippi the malpractise situation finaly got so bad that doctors were fleeing the state and they were in serious danger of having a health care crisis. The state then had to limit awards to settle things down. Civil law in this country was intended to be a way for an injured party to receive fair compensation, not hit the jackpot. Unfotunately the end user pays all costs and this system does increase the cost of medical care. If we were to approach this problem in a true free market sense we would adopt a loser pays system of civil law.
I we could eliminate the embedded cost of insurance, reduce the threat of malpractise and get government out of the doctors office our per capita expenditure on health care would be drastically reduced. I will try to find real, published data for you. Peter

I am in favor of universal health care, at least in concept. All the universal health care proposals I have seen have been very short on specifics and long on vague broad ideas. I am also in favor of universal work, self reliance, intelligent decisions on lifestyles, everyone needs to be productive or self sufficient. The thing I am against is the Government deciding what, where and how I can live more than they do all ready.

Will the Government be able to tell a fat person they have to join a gym to be covered? Tell a smoker that they have to quit to be covered? Tell a person living a risky lifestyle they have to quit that lifestyle to be covered? Tell fast food places to drop all items from the menu that tend to make us fat? Order the closing off non organic food vendors? Answer is no, no, no, no, no, no and no.

Then they will have to get cost containment some place. Tell doctors to work for 30% of their old wages. Yeah right. Tell hospitals to close off new wings with state of the art equipment. Not going to happen. How will those bonds get paid for that were used to build the wings and buy the equipment? I remember when you had to drive 80 miles to get chemo treatments. People will pitch a fit if told they can not get services convenient to their homes.

How much control are you willing to let the Government have over your life? Will they be able to tell you that after age 60 you no longer can have certain services due to your advanced age and limited return on dollars spent. For example after age 60 you no longer can get a kidney transplant. If you want and need one you have to pay out of pocket. Or after age 75 you no longer can have knee or hip replacement. Or after age 80 you no longer can have cancer treatments. These are real questions that have not been answered. The number of dollars are limited and there will have to be limits set for services at some level.

Many other national health care systems are not really free. If you think that I am kidding take a close look at how some of the Universal Health Care programs work around the world. France has a system that pays a basic 75% and the other 25% is covered by a mandatory insurance that you a required to buy by law. The Swiss system is different but when you get right down to it their tax rate is well above ours. Are you willing to pay 50%, closer to 60% when you add in all the taxes and hidden taxes and cost to live here with universal health care? Money has to come from some place.

Our government prints money and can not break even. They spend money like a drunk on a binge to curry favor and get reelected. There is no incentive to be efficient or to hold cost down to any reasonable level. Just as they buy hammers for hundred of dollars they will be buying aspirin for hundreds of dollars. When you take the inefficiencies of government, lack of real oversight or controls and the fact that every bloated government program started out as a good idea, talk of letting the government manage all the health care in this country should scare you. It is one sixth of our total economy and you are willing to let the government take total control of it.

Agriculture is a smaller part of the economy, are any of us willing to let the government run agriculture? Let them have total control. We would starve or be forced to import food like the old Soviet Union in five years. How about steel or the auto industry? Is there any industry that the Government can take over and run it better than it is being run now? Any?

Before I vote for any universal health care candidate I want specifics. Not broad visions. Nuts and bolts facts with real programs that spell out what you get and what is not covered. Until then I will not vote for any candidate who is serious about universal health care because specifics are real, concepts are not.

KY Jon, a lot of the questions you ask have already been answered here. You might find some enlightenment in this article from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
I don't think French eating habits have suffered much under universal health care!

Go back through this thread, click on the information links. You'll discover that Americans pay more for health care per capita, and as a percentage of GDP, than the French - or anyone else in the world. A lot more. Our privately-insured health care administration costs are far higher than government-run Medicare. And our health care outcomes don't measure up to other major industrial nations with universal health care (UHC).

Most opponents of UHC don't understand how it is working successfully in countries around the world - and make no effort to inform themselves. It's easier to remain ignorant than to learn. But if America ever acknowledges basic health care as a citizen's right - as do all the other major nations of the earth - hopefully we'll be smart enough 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.

A hundred years ago, lots of Americans didn't understand how horseless carriages worked, either - but they learned.

Selling a "general proposition" can be fairly easy, when the buyers in question don't know much about the subject at hand. But let's try another general proposition. Just like universal health care, this one is also backed up by facts and data from foreign countries:

1. Most foreign countries have stricter gun laws than the United States.
2. The homicide rate in those countries with stricter gun laws is significantly lower than in the United States.

So . . . have I successfully made the case for stricter gun laws in this country? I have a feeling that I have not, especially not to the folks that patronize doublegunshop, because they are far better versed than your average American on the subject of guns and gun laws.

Now we're back to the original subject of the thread: the right to keep and bear arms.

No, you have not made the case for stricter US gun laws, Larry, Stricter laws may contribute to lower homicides. Publics seem to believe that in Canada where the rate is steady. There are also cultural differences I have mentioned which have a bearing on how countries, states and communities organize their priorities.

I am appalled to see such ignorance posted here as "fact"! This is a 'post hoc' fallacy of the far Left, which is not supported by facts according to Guns & Ammo magazine: http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

In contrast, the facts I have provided here on universal health care come from recognized, legitimate published sources, to which I have provided convenient links for verification.

BTW, Larry's statement was originally posted as a straight, unabashed proposition that stricter gun laws = lower gun homicide rates, without any caveats or reservations. It was only after I drew attention to this that he went back and carefully edited his 3rd paragraph to explain his way out of it! (and carefully X-ed out the "Mark as Edited" box!)

Peter and King,
The problem is the 40 year old woman who goes in for back surgery and the doctors mistakenly identify a vein as the iliolumbar instead of as the external illiac vein. The external illiac drains the entire lower leg of blood. They decide to ligate and close it because it is "in the way." They then find in post-op recovery pressures in her lower leg 3 or 4 times normal but don't do the necessary emergency surgery for 8 hours, each hoping the other will take care of the problem. Patient ends up in multiple organ failure with lifetime loss of use of her leg and extreme permanent pain syndrome. Can't even go to the bathroom without help. Will spend her life out of work and essentially bed ridden and in pain.

The problem is the woman who goes in for knee replacement surgery and when she is taken to the recovery room she is still asleep. The orthopedic surgeon has a golf tee time and wants to start the next case. So, the anesthesiologist extubates the patient and leaves her asleep. She chokes. By the time he gets back to her (and breaks her jaw trying to re-intubate her), she is brain dead from lack of oxygen. Her devoted husband is left with some nasty choices and will never have his wife.

The problem is the woman who has gastric bypass surgery and develops a small ulcer right at the anastomosis (the new connection between the stomach and intestine). She can't hold down any food. The hospital and several doctors treat her for 3 months including 9 infusions of water because she is dehydrated. They never give her any nutrition. She is so sick she is in the hospital for over two weeks. Still, no nutrition. One day, after two weeks in the hospital,she is batty. They call in the neurologists. Well, she has developed Wernicke's encephalopathy. An irreversable condition characterized by ataxia, ophthalmoplegia, confusion, and impairment of short-term memory. This condition is caused by lack of protein. It happens right there in the hospital. It could have been cured by simply giving her IV nutrition any time before it manifested. It takes months to develop. She spends the rest of her normal life in a wheelchair drooling and being fed and having her butt wiped by others. She can remember her whole past, who she is, who her family are. But, she can't carry on a coherent conversation because she has NO short term memory. Kind of like Alzheimer's disease. (Course, the good news is you can tell her the same joke over and over a hundred times. It never gets old.)

The problem is the young mother having her second child. After the birth she develops extremely high blood pressure. A well know condition called pre-eclampsia. The condition is fairly easily treated with immediate infusion of mag sulfate. But, some knuckle heads decides not to give that drug for about 8 hours. She develops full blown eclampsia and dies of multiple organ failure and brain hemorrhage. She leaves behind the new baby and his 3 year old sister and a husband who earns a modest wage with no other family to help him.

The problem is that when real malpractice occurs, it can be devastating and extremely expensive to deal with. And, for what it is worth, over 35 states have enacted "tort reform" for medical malpractice cases. It is the most restrictive area of law for a claimant/plaintiff in about half of the United States. Recoveries for death of a child or spouse or for a lifetime of debilitating pain is $250,000. That is it. Not a dime more. And, to prosecute such a case to a successful conclusion costs about $100,000. Most good lawyers can't afford take medical malpractice cases on.

There are certainly system abuses out there. There are certainly frivolous suits filed. But, eliminating responsibility for one's actions has some inequity built in as well.

And, if we are all fans of "personal responsibility" and "taking responsibility for our own actions" then that also must mean that when someone screws up, they should take responsibility for the results.

Don't you think?

Jake