My group clearly wasn't indicative of the entire political perspective, but I did find the objectivist everyone-fend-for-themselves perspective conspicuously absent. The thing most people were concerned about wasn't abstractly ideological, it was practical. Can we actually afford to provide health care to everyone? Will a public option actually bankrupt the insurance companies? Can the government run a health care plan?

Only one guy out of 13 said that under no circumstances did he want to have to pay for his neighbor's cancer treatment, and he was clearly befuddled when I pointed out that the whole concept of private insurance is to pay into a pot from which people who have emergencies can draw, so the private system already does entail paying for other people's illnesses, or them paying for yours depending on what hand you draw in life. The important part was that all other twelve people expressed disagreement with his 'fuck everyone else' opinion. Everyone in that room seemed to believe in the moral imperative to provide at least basic health care.

So if I were a politician opposing health care I would most certainly not dig up the arguments presented on this forum. I would not quote Rand or Ron Paul. The conversation has its own merits, but I just wanted to point out that I think it's largely tangential with respect to the national debate.

You guys are taking this Christian thing too far. I think Aroddo is mostly pointing out how a predominantly Christian nation doesn't uphold Christian values in certain cases.

The notion that the United States can't force people to give to charity in the form of taxes is to ignore any form of foreign aid. Did you know that the Bush administration sent aid to Africa with your tax dollars?

This is an argument that Jon Stewart used in his interview with McCaughey. Medicare obviously didn't turn America socialist and seniors are the happiest with their health care in the United States, so why should this current bill, whose aim is to provide a public option, be shot down?

To assume that foreign aid is selfless charity is to be ignorant of the persuit of international self-interest. See: The Marshall Plan.

We are talking an entirely different magnitude of cost. Food stamps are issued to a small minority of the population, and even so, many Americans disagree with their existence. Additionally, unemployment insurance is similar in concept to social security: we pay into our own accounts as part of our federal income tax. Public health insurance will not use the same conceptual 1:1 revenue model. With a projected 10-year deficit now at $9 trillion, how exactly will increased taxation and new federal spending offer any hope to our young generations?

so having a healthy workforce isn't in pursuit of domestic self-interest?

I wasn't aware that the American workforce was stricken by some sort of plague as of late.

You're avoiding the point. My point was that if, as you say, the government pursues its goals in pursuit of self interest, why isn't it actively pushing for a healthier public?

And by the way, we have more of most diseases than other Western countries. I don't have the statistics right next to me, I think it was from the BBC though.

EDIT: nevermind, it's from the Journal of the AMA: (emphasis mine)

"The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer. Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy. This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences… Level differences between countries are sufficiently large that individuals in the top of the education and income strata in the United States have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England." (See also Table 1 - for example, prevalence of diabetes among high-income Americans is 8.2 per thousand, while it's 7.3 among low-income Brits.) Banks, Marmot et al., "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006;295:2037-2045.

I'm just going to ignore this whole good Christian crap.  If you haven't read the bible, don't bother telling someone else what it says.  Christians that haven't read it should follow the same philosophy.

Your analysis would have a point.  However, massive government beaurocracies that directly and indirectly deprive you of guaranteed rights have been pulled from thin air out of a single line in the Constitution.  The commerce clause says quite simply that Congress is empowered to make trade regular.  That means they have the authority to prevent tarrifs, perhaps improve interstate infrastructure.  Free and fair.  Instead, incandescent lightbulbs have been banned.

The second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, a license requirement with restrictions to access is infringement.  A ban on carrying in banks and bars is an infringement.  A ban on carrying concealed is an infringement.  A ban on carrying openly is an infringement.  They couldn't have known what would come to pass, but according to the constitution, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead and there's not a damn thing the government could do.  Instead, there are numerous infringements from top to bottom.

The commerce clause backs so many things it clearly doesn't provide for, and a clear cut right to be a lunatic with a machine gun walking past the White House flat doesn't exist.  Is it blatant sensationalism or something lawyers have told the poor bastard they could get away with in our current legal morass?  I can think of plenty of bigger stretches than that, ones with Supreme Court rulings giving them the official stamp.

Edit:  Cuca... er... fuck, I already forgot how to spell it.  Whatever your name is, sorry.

Those are all life style attributed diseases.  Dietary choices, drug use, and state of activity.  If we ate, drank, smoked and exercised like the brits, we'd have similar symptoms to go with our choice.  You are vouching for a dictatorial government that tells you how to live if you want the government to fix the results of your lifestyle.

Someone is seriously quoting JAMA in a political discussion? It's not like the AMA has a political agenda, right? And it has nothing to do with the majority of physicians in the US, either, or the AMA would be pushing harder for tort reform. If you want less BS, consult the American College of Surgeons or other specialist-based agencies.

Also while it wouldn't be easy to get rid of it completely, any plan that were put into place could and would still be as subject to change according to public opinion as anything else is. I know that probably isn't too comforting, but public outcry has curtailed a fair number of military projects and operations.

Here's a con you can add to the list that came up in the other thread.

The reason proponents support health care reform is so that they can sneak in legislation that will allow underage women to receive abortions without parental approval paid for by the taxpayer. You can file this under paranoid delusions.

If I can't afford my insurance because I'm a fat, sedintary slob that smokes two packs a day, the solution is to get off my ass, cut down on the donuts, and stop smoking.  The solution is not to force everyone else to pay for my lack of discipline.  After you force everyone else to pay for it whether they want to or not, there are only two ways to control costs.  Let me die, or force me to behave.  There is no third option unless you want to do exactly what the private sector already does.  Charge me more for my being a lardass with lung cancer and heart disease by 50.

Edit:  Mumble, you're a tard.  We already have tax dollars going towards under age abortions without consent.  Planned Parenthood currently recieves quite a bit of public funding, and they've been caught numerous times doing just that.  The only paranoid delusion here is the one where you pretend you have a clue and we're just out to get you.

Oh look at you, trying to spread this around in multiple threads in order to tar your opponents with views they may or may not hold. Bad boy!

There's multiple differences between the United States Constitution and a Health Care bill.

1. The health care bill is longer.
2. The constitution was written over 200 years before the health care bill.

let's look at number one. The constitution covers more topics with less page space. Of course it's not going to include every single detail about how the government is supposed to be run, that's why it delegates the powers out to the legislative, executive, and judicial bodies. On the other hand, bill by congress is supposed to be a lot more specific. That's why it's over 1,000 pages long.

As for number two, opinions and interpretations change over time. The jucial branch essentially exists to interpret the constitution, and obviously interpretations are going to change just as guns transform from muzzle loaded muskets to something you can conceal in your pocket.

And finally, the point that McCaughey makes is completely unrelated.

Stewart (reading):IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

McCaughey: Putting pressure on doctors to require patients to go through a consultation that's prescribed by the government, and then penalizing them if the patient or family changes their mind about their living will in a moment of crisis, that's really wrong.

Stewart: That would be really wrong if that was in any way what this really said.

the reporting data is known as PQRI. A blogger who's a physician puts it best: (emphasis mine)

"Medicare has a program called PQRI in which they collect data on quality of care and reimburse physicians who track these measures (many physicians, myself included, believe this really means that we will only be given full payment for tracking PQRI). For example, if I track data on whether my diabetics are offered certain tests, have their blood pressure checked, etc., I get a bonus payment (supposedly). At this point, I don't get penalized for bad blood pressures, or rewarded for good ones. The only reward is in the tracking."

the blog entry: http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/08/stewart_v_mccaughey---more_to.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink