Universal Healthcare Inevitable?

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
The right to decent treatment? The right??? What the hell are you talking about? You have a right to find and pay for decent treatment.

This is not some entitlement. It is an opportunity. Get that straight.

You obviously know squat about French law. There’s a profusion of legal texts that guarantee that right. I’ve listed a few below:

[i]
* DECRET N°74.27 DU 14 JANVIER 1974 :

ARTICLE 2 : << l�??admission à l�??hôpital est prononçée par le directeur général ( ou le directeur ) sur l�??avis d�??un médecin ou d�??un interne de l�??établissement (�?�) >>
ARTICLE 4 : << Si l�??état d�??un malade ou d�??un blessé réclame des soins urgents,même en l�??absence de toutes pièces d�??état civil et de tout renseignement sur les conditions dans lesquelles les frais de séjour seront remboursés à l�??établissement ; plus généralement , il prend toutes mesures pour que ces soins urgents soient assurés .>> .
ARTICLE 31 : << Les étrangers sont admis dans l�??établissement dans les mêmes conditions que les ressortissants français >> .

* LA LOI N°92.722 DU 29 JUILLET 1992 (portant adaptation de la loi n°88.1088 du 1er décembre 1988 relative au minimum d�??insertion et relatif à la lutte contre le chômage d�??exclusion ) :

ARTICLE 187.1 : <<Sous réserve des dispositions de l�??article 186 , toute personne résidant en France a droit , pour elle-même et les personnes à sa charge au sens des articles L.161.14 et L.313.3 du code de la sécurité sociale , à l�??aide médicale pour des dépenses de santé qu�??elle ne peut supporter (�?�)>>.

* CIRCULAIRE N°33.93 DU 17 SEPTEMBRE 1993 (relative à l�??accès aux soins des personnes les plus démunies , du ministère des affaires sociales , de la santé et de la ville ) :

<< (…) L�??article L.711.14 du code de la santé publique rappelle que les établissements assurant un service public garantissent l�??égal accès de tous aux soins qu�??ils dispensent. Ils sont ouverts à toutes les personnes dont l�??état requiert leurs services…
"Ces règles s�??appliquent tout particulièrement aux démunis pour lesquels le service public est le dernier recours . (…)Hors cas d�??urgence , lorsque l�??état du patient ne nécessite pas une hospitalisation ou lorsque ce dernier se présente dans l�??établissement sans connaître son état réel , il importe qu�??il puisse être examiné par un médecin ou un interne qui lui prescrira les soins qui lui sont nécessaires , même s�??il est dépourvu de pièces justificatives permettant sa prise en charge ou de moyens financiers.Je vous rappelle qu�??il n�??appartient pas aux membres du corps médical de refuser de donner les soins que requiert l�??état du patient si celui se présente sans prise en charge (…) >>.

* LOI N°93.1027 DU 24 AOUT 1993 (relative à la maîtrise de l�??immigration et aux conditions d�??entrées , d�??accueil et de séjour des étrangers en France ):

ARTICLES 186 DU CODE DE LA FAMILLE ET DE L�??AIDE SOCIALE : <<les personnes de nationalité étrangère bénéficient dans les conditions prévues aux titres 2, 3 et 3 bis :
1-des prestations d�??aides sociales à l�??enfance ; 2- de l�??aide sociale en cas d�??admission dans un centre d�??hébergement et de réadaptation sociale ; 3- de l�??aide médicale en cas de soins dispensés par un établissement de santé ou de prescriptions ordonnées à cette occasion , y compris en cas de consultation externe ; 4 -de l�??aide médicale à domicile , à condition qu�??elles justifient soit d�??un titre exigé des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour séjourner régulièrement en France, soit d�??une résidence ininterrompue en France métropolitaine depuis au moins trois ans (…) >>.

* DECRET N°94.294 DU 15 AVRIL 1994 (fixant la liste des titres exigés des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour l�??application de l�??article 186 du code de la famille et de l�??aide sociale ) :

Article 1er : << la liste des titres et documents attestant la régularité de la résidence en France des personnes de nationalité étrangère pour l�??attribution des formes d�??aide sociale visées au 4 et à l�??avant dernier alinéa de l�??article 186 du C.F.A.S est fixée ainsi qu�??il suit : 1-carte de résident ; 2-carte de résident privilégié ; 3-carte de séjour temporaire ; certificat de résidence de ressortissant algérien ; 5-récépissé de demande de renouvellement de l�??un des titres ci-dessus ; 6- récépissé de première demande de carte de séjour d�??une validité supérieure à trois mois ; 7-autorisation provisoire de séjour d�??une durée de validité égale ou supérieure à trois mois ; 8- récépissé de demande de titre de séjour portant la mention " reconnu réfugié " d�??une durée de validité de six mois renouvelable ;9-récépissé de demande de titre de séjour portant la mention " étranger admis au titre de l�??asile " d�??une durée de validité de six mois renouvelable ;10-récépissé de demande d�??asile intitulé " récépissé constatant le dépôt d�??une demande de statut de réfugié " d�??une durée de validité de trois mois renouvelable ;11-carte d�??identité d�??Andorran délivrée par le préfet du département des Pyrénées Orientales ; 12- passeport monégasque revêtu d�??une mention du consul général de France à Monaco valant autorisation de séjour ; 13- livret ou carnet de circulation >>.

* Code de la santé publique :

  L.711.4 : Les établissements publics de santé garantissent l�??égal accès de tous aux soins qu�??ils dispensent. Ils sont ouverts à toutes personnes dont l�??état requiert leurs services. Ils doivent être en mesure de les accueillir de jour et de nuit, éventuellement en urgence, ou d�??assurer leur admission dans un autre établissement. Ils dispensent aux patients les soins préventifs, curatifs et palliatifs que requiert leur état et veillent à la continuité de ces soins, à l�??issue de leur admission ou de leur hébergement. Ils ne peuvent établir aucune discrimination entre les malades en ce qui concerne les soins.

* Loi du 31 juillet 1991 :

L�??accueil de toute personne est une obligation du service public hospitalier.
En situation d�??urgence, chacun doit être admis à l�??hôpital. Ce dernier ne peut exiger une pièce d�??état civil ou des renseignements relatifs aux modalités de prise en charge avant de procéder aux soins.
Hors urgence, dans le cas d�??une hospitalisation ou pour des soins programmés en consultation externe, l�??hôpital peut demander les cartes d�??assuré social ou d�??aide médicale ou à défaut une provision en application de l�??article R.716.91 du code de la santé publique.

* Loi du 29 juillet 1998 : 

Il est demandé aux directeurs des établissements de sensibiliser à nouveau le personnel hospitalier pour qu�??ils exercent une particulière vigilance afin de faciliter l�??accueil des plus démunis. L�??ouverture à la cité des établissements sanitaires est renforcée par la possibilité pour les institutions sociales et les associations d�??être plus souvent et plus systématiquement présentes à l�??hôpital. L�??hôpital doit s�??ouvrir à une dynamique de réseau. Si l�??état médical du patient ne justifie pas une hospitalisation, il convient :

  - d�??informer cette personne de ses droits sociaux, des structures d�??accueil social et d�??accompagnement et de faciliter ses démarches dans ce sens
  • de l�??inviter à prendre contact avec ces structures
  • ou encore de l�??adresser à un interlocuteur participant au dispositif de veille social qui doit être mis en place à l�??initiative du représentant de l�??Etat dans le département. Ce dispositif est chargé d�??informer et d�??orienter les personnes en difficulté et fonctionne en permanence tous les jours de l�??année et peut être saisi par toute personne, organisme ou collectivité.

Article L.711.3 : l�??hôpital est un des acteurs engagés dans la prévention et la lutte contre les exclusions dont la coordination devra être assurée par le comité départementale de coordination des politiques de prévention et de lutte contre les exclusions. (article 155 de la loi ). Le service public hospitalier concourt à la lutte contre l�??exclusion sociale, en relation avec les autres professions et institutions compétentes en ce domaine, ainsi que les associations qui oeuvrent dans le domaine de l�??insertion et de la lutte contre l�??exclusion, dans une dynamique de réseaux

Article L.711.4 : les établissements doivent s�??assurer qu�??à l�??issue de leur admission ou de leur hébergement, tous les patients disposent des conditions d�??existence nécessaires à la poursuite de leur traitement. A cette fin, ils orientent les patients sortants, ne disposant pas de telles conditions d�??existence, vers des structures prenant en compte la précarité de leur situation. Les établissements de santé public ou P.S.P.H contribuent à l�??objectif global de réinsertion des patients dans le circuit de droit commun d�??accès aux soins dés l�??accueil de ceux-ci dans les services de soins et aux urgences (rapport de l�??assemblée nationale n°856, tome 2, Le Garrec, page 106 ).

* Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 dans son préambule :

"Le peuple français proclame solennellement son attachement aux Droits de l�??homme et aux principes de la souveraineté nationale tels qu�??ils sont définis par la déclaration de 1789, confirmée et complétée par le préambule de la constitution de 1946. "
Préambule de la constitution du 27 octobre 1946 : " La Nation assure à l�??individu et à la famille les conditions nécessaires à leur développement. Elle garantie à tous, notamment à l�??enfant, à la mère et aux travailleurs, la protection de la santé, la sécurité matérielle, le repos et les loisirs. "

* Code de déontologie (décret n°95-1000 du 6 septembre 1995 portant code déontologie médicale)

Art 7 :Le médecin doit écouter, examiner, conseiller ou soigner avec la même conscience toutes les personnes quels que soient leur origine, leurs m�?urs et leur situation de famille, leur appartenance à une ethnie, une nation ou une religion déterminée, leur handicap ou leur état de santé, leur réputation ou les sentiments qu�??il peut éprouver à leur égard.
Art 9 : Tout médecin qui se trouve en présence d�??un malade ou d�??un blessé en péril ou, informé qu�??un malade ou un blessé est en péril, doit lui porter assistance ou s�??assurer qu�??il reçoit les soins nécessaires.
Art 48 : Le médecin ne peut abandonner ses malades en cas de danger public, sauf sur ordre formel donné par une autorité qualifiée, conformément à la loi.[/i]

Translation: Do not speak about what you don’t know. If you think French law should be changed, take it up with them. But don’t throw “What the hell are you talking about?” to my face when you clearly have no idea which way the wind blows.

Actually, following your logic, there are no inalienable right. And it may come as a shock to you, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issue has been settled 60 years ago. Go read it, and see what your country’s position on it was.[/quote]
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.
[/quote]

In most European conceptions of the relationship between government and the citizenry they are. The state giveth and the state is free to taketh away, hence the bloody wars that rage across the continent from time-to-time … but that’s another discussion entirely.

[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:

This is not the land of entitlement as so many have come to believe; it is the land of opportunity, where you make your own way.[/quote]

I agree.

The exceptions being:

The elderly and disabled.
Children.
Mentally ill.
Veterans.
Pregnant women.
The poor.

A system where everyone gets free state healthcare is destined to failure as the task is so huge and complex. (I know i’m dumbing down my argument).
You only have to examine the UK’s National Health Service to see this.

However I do support the Canadian health system as it is a REAL success in North America.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.
[/quote]

Please elaborate.

If I remember correctly the UK and the members of the EU accepted the European Convention on Human Rights (one way or another for example the UK produced its own Act bringing Britain in to line with the rest of the EU).

The biggest problem with the health care and health insurance and drug prices is government bureaucracy. idiot politicians make stupid rules complicating the system, then special interests bribe the other politicians to support some stupid rule that benefits them in some way.

Then the system is set up to make stealing from the government system easy, and almost encouraged.

Why would anyone think giving the whole system over to the government would make things better when it has already fucked things up so bad?

By the way, the term socialized medicine is technically incorrect. The correct term would be fascistized madicine.

But there is another problem with the health care industry, and that is ignorant people.

I do know people who do not have health insurance because it costs too much, yet can afford those brand new car payments.

Then there are the people who mistakenly think health insurance is health care, and try to cover everything and anything instead of looking at it as what it really is, insurance.

You do not buy car insurance to fill up your car every week do you? You don’t buy home owners insurance to cover the painting of your garage do you? Of course not. It is there for emergencies, not to take care of every little tiny thing.

Treat health insurance the same way and it can actually cost a hell of a lot less.

My wife has a whole host of medical problems, and it seems logical to go for the most coverage, and yet I have never done that. Instead I have done something most people cannot do. Math.

As I have said before, this year we were able to have full control over our insurance. A build it yourself plan. So I chose a $2,000 deductible, and $2,000 max out of pocket. We have already hit that $2,000. (For her portion.) So everything else, including her medicine, is covered 100% for the rest of the year. And this is costing us a grand total of ~ $12 every 2 weeks.

We are ecstatic about our insurance this year, and yet my wife hears people complaining about how their insurance has gone up. These are the people who think they need $250 deductibles, and wish it was even smaller.

Most people would be healthy enough to not use up their deductible, saving them tons of money. And if they do, the difference between what they actually spent, and what they really saved on the insurance is negligible.

If you can’t afford health insurance, sell your new car and buy something used with payments lower enough (or better yet, no payments,) that the difference would pay for your insurance.

“Sorry honey, we can’t afford health insurance, Daddy’s got to buy beer.”

Now France was mentioned. And yes, it seems as if the people there like the health care system in place. At least the ones who are not watching the finances involved. (Ballooning deficits, and increased taxes.) They are actually thinking of making changes to the system due to the costs involved. If it works so great, why are they changing it? Because they can’t afford it.

We already cannot afford Socialist Security. , which in itself has grown from 1% takeout from our income to the currently ~ 15%, and is still creating huge, “off the books” debt. Even without the system in place we are already spending more then Canada on health care.

If there is a system that actually works somewhere out there, and does not produce huge deficits, and does not produce negatives in health and health care, show it to me.

If rights can be granted by the State then that means they can be taken away which means they are not rights but rather privileges.

A right is absolute. You have a right to your life because it is yours. You have a right to the produce of your labor because you create it with your life – also known as property. You have a right to engage your life as you see fit to your own end because it is yours to do so. One does not have the right to any one else’s life or property because this implies ownership of that person.

To give a person the right to health care, food, clothing, housing, etc., means that it must be taken from someone else. This is in direct violation of the rights of others. How can you give food to someone without stealing it from it’s owner? How can you give health care to someone without stealing it from someone else? How can you give something to someone without taking it from someone else? Is that not a violation of individual rights?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
“Sorry honey, we can’t afford health insurance, Daddy’s got to buy beer.”
[/quote]
Think of beer as medication.

[quote]
ElbowStrike wrote:
Except that public health care in Britain, Canada, and many other countries costs significantly less per patient for equal or better care.[/quote]

I dispute this. Private insurance is inefficient, but government mucks it up as bad or worse.

As for the economics, if you take something that is a valued good and make it free, you will get overuse of the good - and, thus, rationing in Great Britain and Canada. This is particularly the case for expensive goods - like organ transpants, cancer treatment, etc.

Not to mention there is a lot of world-wide free-riding on the innovations funded by the American system w/r/t drugs and medical device technology.

Here;s a post from a WSJ blog on the subject:

[i]I hate it that people think that the “coverage denied” problem exists only in private (or quasi-private as exists in the United States) medical systems.

People in Canada (where I live) are denied medical care all the time. There is no garantee whatsoever that you will get the medical care you need. When there is a shortage of care (which is common), the government simply denies some people medical care. You can’t legislate away scarcity.

The thing that systems like Canada garantee is that you will not be billed for health care. People still go without health care as much or more than the U.S., but no-one is going to lose their home, or their automobile, or not get a job, because of their health problems. No one has to make the decision not to go on vacation or forego buying that big plasma TV in order to pay for their health insurance.

If you want to argue that modern medical treatments like Chemotherapy, MRIs, etc., have very little effect on life expectancy (most of our increased life expectancy comes from immunizations, antibiotics, plentiful food, and floride / dental care), and that finacial security should be the overriding concern when comparing medical systems, then we can have a rational discussion. Maybe state-run health care IS better at providing people a feeling of financial security. Perhaps state-run health care can make better decisions on who should be denied health care than the market (i.e. state-run systems tend to let older citizens die off without a bunch of expensive treatments… perhaps it is more “ethical” to deny old people care instead of people who have less money).

However, as long as people keep presenting the myth that poor people in Canada or the UK or wherever have greater access to medical treatment, that they aren’t just as likely to be outright denied coverage, then there can’t be any sort of rational discussion.

The discussion isn’t about “making sure everyone has access to healthcare”, because there has yet to be a system that provided everyone access to healthcare. What we should be discussing is how hard we should protect people from the choice of bankrupting themselves in order to pay for expensive treatments.

Posted by: Rex Rhino at Jan 4, 2008 10:42:06 AM[/i]

I always go back to this post by Tyler Cowen:

[i]How to debate health care policy

Health care policy should be debated through micro-facts. Let’s consider a few:

  1. American health care outcomes look much better once we adjust for race and other demographic factors, including violence and car crashes. Some groups – such as Asian-American women – have remarkably good health care outcomes.

  2. Some of the health care savings of other systems occur through price effects (e.g., doctors are paid an average of $60,000 in France) and do not involve real resource savings.

  3. American’s high expenditures, however wasteful they may be, nonetheless drive much of the world’s medical innovation. Medical innovation is also a public good to some extent and no the pharmaceutical companies are not simply parasites on the NIH and universities.

  4. America has a different structure of interest groups. and therefore a single payer system in the United States would not operate as does a single payer system in other countries. It would more likely favor the interests of doctors and insurance companies, for a start.

  5. If we take the international health results/expenditures data at face value (and we shouldn’t), they imply that greater access to medical care does not itself improve health outcomes. So we should be careful in how we use and cite such results.

  6. Health care outcomes improve with income even under single-payer systems. Our best estimates suggest that this gradient is no steeper in the United States than it is in Canada.

  7. Having health insurance does improve your health care outcomes, but not to an amazing degree. The largest benefits are arguably the alleviation of financial risk, and no I am not meaning to slight that factor.

  8. Pharmaceuticals, unlike many forms of health care, have large and noticeably positive effects on individual health.

  9. The major Democratic health care plans on the table all, one way or another, admit they will spend more money on health care. The fact that other countries spend less therefore does not help predict the change in spending that would result from these plans.

(Sorry for the lack of links, I am on the road, google back to previous MR posts for documentations.)

Now here is how to debate health care policy. Ask a defender of single payer systems (or other possible reforms) how many of these points he or she accepts. Settle on that list, noting that residual disagreements may well remain. Then debate what the list means for what America should do about health care policy today.

Here’s how not to debate health care policy. When you hear one point on that list, bring up in response that other countries spend less and produce better health care outcomes and that therefore we should copy the systems of those countries.

But libertarians, I am not letting you off the hook either: Isn’t there some form of further government intervention into health care that could help somebody? And if your basic model is that governments steal as much money as they can, and then waste it all, shouldn’t we then jump at the chance to institute health care subsidies of this at least partially helpful nature? The alternative is simply that the money gets wasted some other and worse way.[/i]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.

Shire wrote:
Please elaborate.

If rights can be granted by the State then that means they can be taken away which means they are not rights but rather privileges. [/quote]

In the case of France, it is technically “society” that grants rights. And had you lived in 18th century, you may then understand why they had to guarantee those rights in writing.

So, like I said, take it up with the French.

Wait…how does the death penalty as practiced in your country fit into all this?

Ok. How do you reconcile this with the income tax?

Yes. What’s your point?

Not in France, it ain’t. The right to having a cohesive, uniform and healthy society trumps your right to buy luxury items.

None of this is in support of Katz’s unusually laconic statement. I didn’t argue the superiority of one system over the other. I simply corrected a misconception.

[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.

Shire wrote:
Please elaborate.

If rights can be granted by the State then that means they can be taken away which means they are not rights but rather privileges.

In the case of France, it is technically “society” that grants rights. And had you lived in 18th century, you may then understand why they had to guarantee those rights in writing.

So, like I said, take it up with the French.

A right is absolute. You have a right to your life because it is yours.

Wait…how does the death penalty as practiced in your country fit into all this?

You have a right to the produce of your labor because you create it with your life – also known as property.

Ok. How do you reconcile this with the income tax?

To give a person the right to health care, food, clothing, housing, etc., means that it must be taken from someone else.

Yes. What’s your point?

This is in direct violation of the rights of others.

Not in France, it ain’t. The right to having a cohesive, uniform and healthy society trumps your right to buy luxury items.

How can you give food to someone without stealing it from it’s owner? How can you give health care to someone without stealing it from someone else? How can you give something to someone without taking it from someone else? Is that not a violation of individual rights?

None of this is in support of Katz’s unusually laconic statement. I didn’t argue the superiority of one system over the other. I simply corrected a misconception.[/quote]

At the center of the totalitarian/collectivist impulse is the belief that freedom & rights belongs to the state to dispense.

The person is thereby diminished - and purposely so; as Lenin put it, the person is to be considered merely as a “a cog and a screw” in “one great social-democratic mechanism.” More Lenin: “what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything.” (nb, This is Lixy’s “cohesive, uniform society…”) This means keeping track of your health care (the essence of socialism, according to Lenin himself), disposing of your money, regulating your food and drink and tobacco. Etc.

The totalitarian temptation is an abiding feature of modern life - we must be ever alert to its insinuations in the beguiling rhetoric of egalitarianism and statist dispensation, however honorable and morally superior sounding.

How’s that for less laconic?

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
At the center of the totalitarian/collectivist impulse is the belief that freedom & rights belongs to the state to dispense.

The person is thereby diminished - and purposely so; as Lenin put it, the person is to be considered merely as a “a cog and a screw” in “one great social-democratic mechanism.” More Lenin: “what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything.” (nb, This is Lixy’s “cohesive, uniform society…”) This means keeping track of your health care (the essence of socialism, according to Lenin himself), disposing of your money, regulating your food and drink and tobacco. Etc.

The totalitarian temptation is an abiding feature of modern life - we must be ever alert to its insinuations in the beguiling rhetoric of egalitarianism and statist dispensation, however honorable and morally superior sounding.

How’s that for less laconic? [/quote]

I see. You’re calling France a Leninist system.

Good for you!

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:

Insurance, due to the litigious nature of this country, should be another.

I agree with much of your post - but what dost thou mean by this?
[/quote]

erm… If this country was to mandate universal health care, then regulating - thereby assuring everyone has - insurance is the first step. In other words, a National Insurance. Something everyone can afford, based on their economic income(?).

Insurance is what it is due to people bringing lawsuits due to negligence or just bad breaks. And the fact that insurance companies are greedy pigs. Not too far from Enron, IMO. No one should make a greedy buck off the misery of any person.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Wait…how does the death penalty as practiced in your country fit into all this?
[/quote]
It is indeed a conundrum. I am completely against the death penalty. I do not believe the state has a right to take someone’s life. I do not believe the state has a right to determine the price of someone else’s life. It has made too many inconsistent judgments in my opinion.

I cannot reconcile it. Any form of taxation is theft. Taxation is legalized theft of property. The State had to make up the concept of taxation because “legalized theft” seems inconsistent with justice.

Theft in any of its manifestations is wrong.

France’s laws (as well as many other countries) cannot trump the laws of economics. Could it be that France’s definition of a uniform, cohesive “society” is not possible?

[quote]
I didn’t argue the superiority of one system over the other. I simply corrected a misconception.[/quote]

Duly noted.

[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
At the center of the totalitarian/collectivist impulse is the belief that freedom & rights belongs to the state to dispense.

The person is thereby diminished - and purposely so; as Lenin put it, the person is to be considered merely as a “a cog and a screw” in “one great social-democratic mechanism.” More Lenin: “what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything.” (nb, This is Lixy’s “cohesive, uniform society…”) This means keeping track of your health care (the essence of socialism, according to Lenin himself), disposing of your money, regulating your food and drink and tobacco. Etc.

The totalitarian temptation is an abiding feature of modern life - we must be ever alert to its insinuations in the beguiling rhetoric of egalitarianism and statist dispensation, however honorable and morally superior sounding.

How’s that for less laconic?

I see. You’re calling France a Leninist system.

Good for you![/quote]

No I’m not and you know it.

[quote]BackForMore wrote:
Universal health care is as inevitable as carbon taxation / regulation. Both will be equally “successful”.[/quote]

“Even with a fixed eligible population, US public spending on health tends to grow faster than the economy. New technologies push costs up and Medicare, like Social Security, is an entitlement programme, so higher spending comes through automatically, with no real oversight. By 2035, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will more than double, to nearly 10 per cent of gross domestic product. Now add universal access.”

  --- Financial Times of London

We are doomed to a totalitarian state, with rigid price controls and the Thought Police to enforce it all.

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
The right to decent treatment? The right??? What the hell are you talking about? You have a right to find and pay for decent treatment.

This is not some entitlement. It is an opportunity. Get that straight.

You obviously know squat about French law. There’s a profusion of legal texts that guarantee that right. I’ve listed a few below:

Translation: Do not speak about what you don’t know. If you think French law should be changed, take it up with them. But don’t throw “What the hell are you talking about?” to my face when you clearly have no idea which way the wind blows.

Actually, following your logic, there are no inalienable right. And it may come as a shock to you, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issue has been settled 60 years ago. Go read it, and see what your country’s position on it was.[/quote]

Um, who was talking about French universal healthcare becoming inevitable? No one. This thread is about the inevitable USA universal healthcare. Keep up, lixy.

As for some Universal Declaration of Human Rights… why would some document that has no binding authority IN MY COUNTRY hold any interest for me? Hm? Is this some New World Order that supersedes sovereign countries’ laws because “it’s good for them?”

Has anyone ever described you as a communist?

[quote]BackForMore wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Rights are not created by the state Lixy.

In most European conceptions of the relationship between government and the citizenry they are. The state giveth and the state is free to taketh away, hence the bloody wars that rage across the continent from time-to-time … but that’s another discussion entirely.[/quote]

Hence the bloody wars the US starts regularily?

[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
At the center of the totalitarian/collectivist impulse is the belief that freedom & rights belongs to the state to dispense.

The person is thereby diminished - and purposely so; as Lenin put it, the person is to be considered merely as a “a cog and a screw” in “one great social-democratic mechanism.” More Lenin: “what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything.” (nb, This is Lixy’s “cohesive, uniform society…”) This means keeping track of your health care (the essence of socialism, according to Lenin himself), disposing of your money, regulating your food and drink and tobacco. Etc.

The totalitarian temptation is an abiding feature of modern life - we must be ever alert to its insinuations in the beguiling rhetoric of egalitarianism and statist dispensation, however honorable and morally superior sounding.

How’s that for less laconic?

I see. You’re calling France a Leninist system.

Good for you![/quote]

I am calling it a system of national socialism.

I would even go so far as call it inspired by the Swedish system who in turn implemented more than one idea of the Nazis.

[quote]kroby wrote:
No one should make a greedy buck off the misery of any person.[/quote]

At least insurance plans have the possibility of being a voluntary exchange. Taxation is not.

I think we need to change the word “insurance” to “plan” or “coverage”. What most people pay for is not insurance. Insurance is for catastrophic events. Insurance is not supposed to be used for everyday health care.

Catastrophic events usually have a higher price so they should be covered under their own plan. Everyday health care similarly should come under a different plan. If risk is managed properly costs can come down. I shouldn’t have to pay into a system that covers rock-climbers and base-jumpers if I do not partake in that risky behavior just as I don’t want to pay for cigarette smokers’ or fat persons’ health care, for example.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
At the center of the totalitarian/collectivist impulse is the belief that freedom & rights belongs to the state to dispense.

The person is thereby diminished - and purposely so; as Lenin put it, the person is to be considered merely as a “a cog and a screw” in “one great social-democratic mechanism.” More Lenin: “what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything.” (nb, This is Lixy’s “cohesive, uniform society…”) This means keeping track of your health care (the essence of socialism, according to Lenin himself), disposing of your money, regulating your food and drink and tobacco. Etc.

The totalitarian temptation is an abiding feature of modern life - we must be ever alert to its insinuations in the beguiling rhetoric of egalitarianism and statist dispensation, however honorable and morally superior sounding.

How’s that for less laconic?

I see. You’re calling France a Leninist system.

Good for you!

No I’m not and you know it. [/quote]

Yeah, I know. But why did you have to quote Lenin for?