Fugsnarf wrote:

The other countries have failed with their systems. It. Doesn't. Work. Any doctor that supports this is completely idiotic, because they should know that it will make their career far worse than it is right now and that they will lose even more rights with their patients. It's right in the freaken bill! People say this administration isn't transparent, but it is.

Most people in other countries don't seem to mind, though I've never actually checked with a doctor. Possibly you're references to losing rights are in only our bill, which becomes shittier by the day.

Stupot wrote:

Point being, nobody really knows for sure and the best evidence there is, is to look at other countries that have implemented similar systems.

First off, the entire argument for universal health care is based on the philosophy that people have a moral right to health care without having to pay for it. Which, as I've gone over a million times before, they don't. The only legitimate rights are rights to action, not rights to rewards from others.

Second, if your best argument is "well no one really knows for sure what's best", then why are you even getting involved in the debate? No one in their right might would spend trillions of dollars on anything without first having a solid understand of the consequences.

Fugsnarf wrote:

Some crazy wacko on that evil Fox News channel made a really good point. He said that if the government has the ability to give rights, they have the ability to take them away. Do you really want people to decide what your rights are and what they aren't? Healthcare isn't a right, but if you want to place the judgement of giving a right to the people in washington, they can just as easily take away your right to all other sorts of things.

...

enacting health care wouldn't suddenly magically enable them to do things like that. the government already has the potential to do such things; it's just the 'success' of limits that have been put in place (and natural regard towards what's wrong and right) that keep them from happening

no more slippery slopes kthx?

Also, they couldn't care less what's right and wrong. They are corrupt and only care about themselves.

I'm starting to think you're just a troll. You all know exactly what I believe, but you just spend all of your time doing everything to prove all of my points wrong, but not doing anything to prove what you believe right.

Fugsnarf wrote:

I'm starting to think you're just a troll. You all know exactly what I believe, but you just spend all of your time doing everything to prove all of my points wrong, but not doing anything to prove what you believe right.

i stopped to point out how you were wrong because you stopped to say something that was wrong. how does that make me a troll?

i guess anything that makes you look bad is simply wrong and unjust?

telling you not to use a logical fallacy is flaming?

SilkWizard wrote:

First off, the entire argument for universal health care is based on the philosophy that people have a moral right to health care without having to pay for it. Which, as I've gone over a million times before, they don't. The only legitimate rights are rights to action, not rights to rewards from others.

Curious, if you saw someone get hit by a car on the street, would you help them, or stand around watching them bleed?

Stupot, Fug is saying that he knows people who personally work inside the health care system and have a pretty good understanding of what the ramifications of the bill would be for their business. That is, while a lot of people who don't work in health care have derided the bill as well (and for legitimate economic reasons), these folks are even more knowledgeable where it comes to the industry itself. The fact that doctors think this bill is a bad idea happens to be relevant.

Also it's worth pointing out that Fug clearly mentioned that as a mere passing anecdote. He was not trying in that comment to lay out a complete analysis of the flaws in the plan. So you're nitpicking, and you're not even doing it very well.

Anyway your logic is a complete mess. You say in one sentence that the questions of whether it should be done and whether it will work are separate, but then you acknowledge the obvious fact if it won't work it shouldn't be done. So they are not separate, by definition. The question of whether it should be done hinges both on whether it will work and whether it's even necessary/important to act.

And as far as studying similar systems, the Canadian and British systems are well known to be highly dysfunctional, with long waits for treatment and lower quality of care. This is actually documented fact, but you don't have to go ver far to find anecdotal support either. Nor is it difficult to figure out in simple economic terms: Price of a service is dropped to zero while supply stays fixed, demand skyrockets, supply fails to keep up. People pushing for a similar system in the US either have refused to acknowledge this, or else they think that there's some secret formula for success that the US can use to make this work where other nations have failed.

Lummox, they are different questions, even though they are related.

Perhaps the better separation of the questions would be like so:
"Would the new health care system work?"
vs
"Should the government be involved with health care?"

Silk is seeming to suggest that whether or not the system would work, it should not be implemented. While that stance is all fine and dandy, it has nothing to do with whether the system will work. Thus I stated that he was answering a different question than what Fugs was attempting to answer. I assumed that if you followed the flow the conversation (from when I joined in) that would make sense.

As far as whether other nations have failed with their attempts in Universal Health Care, most things I have heard/read seems to indicate that the vast majority of the people living in those countries are indeed happy with their system.

Regardless of whether Universal Health Care or some half-assed version of it passes with this bill, the state of health insurance in this country isn't good and it needs to be changed. I'm not naive enough to think that the bill that is going through now is perfect or even close to it, but I do believe it is better than doing nothing.