Bachmann tells man with 'no teeth' to rely on charity

by **astradt1** Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:11 pm

During one of her latest campaign stops in New Hampshire, Bachmann told the audience, in response to a question about healthcare that to protect the best heatlhcare system it had to remain a free market system, and that if you can't afford the best than you will have to rely on charity.........

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/bachmann-tells-man-no-teeth-rely-charity

It could be inferred that she is suggesting that only those who can afford the best should get the best......

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:48 pm

The reader's blogs under the piece are interesting. Just like this country, it seems that some "names" are so out of touch they could be on another (and imaginary) universe!

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:49 pm

I don't see much of an issue here....with Obamacare, you are still relying on the charity of others to either pay for health insurance you don't want or need "to help keep premiums affordable for everyone" or you get free health care paid for by the taxpayers since you can't afford it for yourself.

Exactly what's the issue?

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:27 pm

Oz, I pay £17.50 per week for what used to be called the NHS stamp. This covers benefits which are means tested, if you have over £16.000 in the bank ye are on yer own! but you still pay the £17,50 per week. Some guys may well add what the employer's contribution to this is for I have no up-and current information.
If you had cancer, and were on Avastin - look it up, would you be paying 27 dollars a week? I'll wager not! yet this is what I am on just now. I feel for Shirina who must be paying a shed load of cash, and as she described on the former boards only gets the basic meds. for her condition.

NOW a question -

Are the politicians in USA REALLY doing the best for the US population as a whole?

Sorry, got the figures wrong not 7.50 a week but £17.50 per week! it's the tablets M'Lud!!

by ROB Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:37 pm

astradt1 wrote:During one of her latest campaign stops in New Hampshire Bachmann told the audiance, in response to a question about healthcare that to protect the 'best heatlhcare system it had to remain a free market system and that if you can't afford the best than you will have to rely on charity.........

Bachmann's underlying presumptions are correct, i.e., (1) that America USV has the "best healthcare system", and (2) that for America USV's system to retain its excellence, it must "remain a free market system."

Had Bachmann put a quarter in the parking meter and stopped right there, she would have remained on solid ground. But our Ms. Bachmann seems unable to learn when to sit down and shut up.

News flash, Ms. Bachmann who would be President of the country co-owned by me: Health care in America USV is excellent; health care coverage in America USV is broke like hell.

astradt1 wrote:It could be inferred that she is suggesting that only those who can afford the best should get tha best......

A lot of things "could be inferred"; conversely, at least one thing can be determined beyond a shadow of a doubt: Michelle Bachmann doesn't "get it."

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:12 pm

How can it be the best?

You can jump on a Mr Boeing cigar tube, come to UK, take ill and you will wake up in hospital - free care at the point of need. You will be treated, fed, watered and kept comfortable, all on my taxes, and the taxes of the other uk contributors on here. At NO POINT will you be asked for your cheque card, at no point will any payment be demanded of you (unless you want a copy of the Chicago Post - that IS chargeable)

If I were to desire to go to USA, on a MR Scareybus, I would need insurance, which if needed is debateable if it would pay ALL of the costs, and all of this would have to be verified by the chargedeaffairs in New York! You would even charge me for bottled water and a slice of bread!

NO, I firmly believe the best healthcare system is the UK one, the NHS!

I also happen to believe, sadly, that US citizens becoming ill in UK, SHOULD be treated EXACTLY the same way that we are over there! (ie dig deep in your pocket)

(EDIT) I am NOT including "medical tourism" here. You can contact a company to set up procedures in Dubai, India Thiland etc. NO I am just saying that if/when on HOLIDAY or Business and take ill your treatment here will be FREE GRATIS - even the Helicopter if you fall off a mountain in Scotland or Wales will not charge you! We should get reciprocated treatment from you lot. Thank you

by Shirina Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:30 pm

Exactly what's the issue?

The issue is that charity does not cover or provide even intermediate needs for health care. When I was in college toward the end of my master's program, I had to rely on charity as I had no insurance. Free clinics sometimes can't even do their own X-Rays. They can only provide the most rudimentary care for people with common and easily cured ailments. They have no ability to provide long-term care for chronic illnesses like cancer or even diabetes, and free clinic pharmacies are very limited in their supply. Some free clinics, like those operated by the Hunger Coalition, will not carry scheduled drugs of any kind (which is what I take).

As I've said many times, and will continue to say, charity is good for getting toys to kids on Christmas, providing hot meals, handing out bread, and giving you a coat in the winter. It does not work for serious health conditions or things like keeping the disabled from becoming homeless. If I ever have to go on disability, I do not want to rely on charity to keep a roof over my head on a continuous basis, and I would rather commit suicide than live in a homeless shelter with the drug addicts, criminals, and psychotics. That's no joke.

On top of that, charity is biased. The government is not. If you qualify, you get help. With charity, you better be a cute child if you need serious money for medical treatment because people get stingy with their money if they think they're helping an adult - especially one my age. Charity also rarely does anything for eye, hearing, or dental care so if you're near or far sighted, better get used to living like Mr. Magoo. You will not get glasses, you will not get a hearing aid, and you will not get dentures.

America's health care system is the world's 5th Avenue boutique. It offers very good health care, but only to those who can afford it. Many Americans can't afford it, even if they are technically paying their premiums. The sacrifices made to maintain health coverage are enormous, and the rising costs of premiums (over 120% in the last 10 years) is slowly eroding the American quality of life. I'm sure many people could think of far better uses for $1200 or per month than spending it on health insurance.

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:43 pm

$1200 or per month than spending it on health insurance. .

WHAAAAAAAAAT £740.00 per MONTH??

£200.00 per week would CRIPPLE this country and that is NO joke!

We already have 130 "FOOD BANKS" in UK with more and more being formed and that is on healthcare of less than £20.00.!

If I have it wrong, please correct me.

by Shirina Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:55 pm

For my father, a former steelworker who lost his job last year, it will cost him around $1200 to cover himself and his wife. If you're working, you can get cheaper insurance policies since your employer will provide them, but you still end up paying a lot out of pocket. One of my friends works at a call center and only makes about $23k per year and yet she has to pay $400 per month for health insurance - and even simple blood tests aren't covered. She ended up cancelling the coverage because it was next to worthless.

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:03 pm

$400 equates to £256 here!

It's where I and possibly a few others were getting tied up.

In 2006, I payed for a private consultation from an E.N.T. Consultant who had a look, syringed one ear and gailey charged me £500. ($780) It's scary for me, as I could not afford a tooth out at those prices!

by ROB Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:03 pm

astra wrote:How can it be the best?

Short answer: Because it is.

astra wrote:How can it be the best?

Longer answer: Because whatever can be medically fixed, cured, and/or treated can be fixed, cured, and/or treated best in America USV.

Canada and New Zealand have excellent health care systems, as do the UK, Australia, major European continent countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, et al., and some other countries that break the mold, like Japan and Singapore.

So please tell me; why did my New Zealander friends journeyed from Auckland to San Francisco for treatment of a potentially life threatening contagious disease? And please tell me; why did my friend's aunt journey from Amsterdam to Dallas for a heart complex procedure that saved her life? And please tell me, why did the Governor General of Quebec try to go to Detroit for a potentially life-saving procedure? On that last one, I'm going from memory, so it might have been Ontario, and it might have been the Premier, but the essentials are correct.

No my friend, American USV health care is excellent; it’s health care coverage (insurance et al.) that’s broke like hell.

astra wrote:NO, I firmly believe the best healthcare system is the UK one, the NHS!

Damned good health care coverage, as is true in New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Canada, three countries from whence four patients, two from New Zealand that I know personally, one from the Netherlands that my friend knows personally, and one from Canada about whom I read, came or attempted to come "running" to the United States so that American USV health care could save their lives.

astra wrote:Thank you

You're welcome.

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:12 pm

It's not a subject for a rant.

BUT

You can get treated here free gratis if you unfortunately take ill

Why should I have to shell out loads of cash, should I 'deliberately' get ill in your country?

Cardiac, Thoracic and Pelvic treatments are carried out at centres of excellence like Ninewells, Dundee, Freeman Hospital Newcastle upon Tyne (where ground breaking heart treatments are today being carried out. Many procedures were trailblazed in these edifices - ultra sound being one (in Ninewells) and cjildren's heart surgery in Freeman

There are many GIs now recieving treatment in the NHS before returning to the US - dont here those guys having a go at us!

by ROB Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:20 pm

astra wrote:$1200 or per month than spending it on health insurance. .

£740.00 per MONTH??

My health insurance is $600.00 per month, which according to your dollar-pound equivalency is £370.00 per month, which is seriously kicking my natural born behind. And let's not neglect to mention the almighty "co-pays", $30.00 a pop every time I stick my natural born nose into a clinic, and one thousand to two thousand smackeroos ($1,000.00 - $2,000.00) for hospital procedures and other major procedures.

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:22 pm

If it is the INSURANCE that is the problem, then take them out of the loop!

We pay directly from our pay packet - cannot dodge it

People on benefit have it payed for them as part of the deal, and no questions about your ilnesses or conditions.

The insurance are making a killing for nothing - no one has said a good word for them yet. Dismiss them and collect the payments from the employers, as is done with taxes.

by ROB Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:29 pm

astra wrote:If it is the INSURANCE that is the problem, then take them out of the loop!

I wish!

by **astradt1** Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:35 pm

So please tell me; why did my New Zealander friends journeyed from Auckland to San Francisco for treatment of a potentially life threatening contagious disease?

A very emotive statement which, on the face of it, would show that US medical care is the 'best' in the world....But when looked at a little more closely raises many questions which could make it a questionable statement........

Why would anyone with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease' put fellow passangers at risk of catching it by travelling such a long distance?

Would the US immigration authorities accept someone on to US soil with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease'?

What was this 'potentially life threatening contagious disease'?

Does the US have some special supersecret antibiotic or antiviral which is unknown to the rest of the world?

We, in the world outside the USA, are aware that the US does offer some treatments which have yet to receive licences for use, due to their as yet experimental and unproven results...........

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:46 pm

[color=black]Longer answer: Because whatever can be medically fixed, cured, and/or treated can be fixed, cured, and/or treated best in America USV.

Any condition can be treated on the NHS, where do you get the idea that some treatments/conditions are ignored in this country? I AM interested!!

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:48 pm

What does USV stand for

while you are at it

What does CVN stand for - yes I know it is an aircraft carrier but where does CVN come in???

by Shirina Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:15 pm

What does CVN stand for - yes I know it is an aircraft carrier but where does CVN come in???

C = Carrier
V = Aviation (Couldn't use the letter 'A' for aviation because that would be CA, and that stands for "heavy cruiser")
N = Nuclear Propulsion

by astra Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:30 pm

OH!! obvious when you point it out Shocked

and somehow CAN would just NOT be right!

by ROB Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:45 pm

astradt1 wrote:
So please tell me; why did my New Zealander friends journeyed from Auckland to San Francisco for treatment of a potentially life threatening contagious disease?

A very emotive statement which, on the face of it, would show that US medical care is the 'best' in the world

A very factual statement which, at the core of it, does show that US medical care is the best (quotation marks inappropriate) in the world.

astradt1 wrote:But when looked at a little more closely raises many questions which could make it a questionable statement........

And when looked at a little more closely answers many questions which do make it a factual statement.

astradt1 wrote:Why would anyone with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease' put fellow passangers at risk of catching it by travelling such a long distance?

No one known to me "with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease'" has "put fellow passengers at risk of catching it by travelling such a long distance." Do you mayhap know of such a one?

astradt1 wrote:Would the US immigration authorities accept someone on to US soil with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease'?

As I am not "the US immigration authorities", I don't know whether or not "the US immigration authorities [would] accept someone on to US soil with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease.'" Since "the US immigration authorities" contact information is readily available (I've provided it here http://www.ice.gov/about/overview/), perhaps you might personally contact and ask "the US immigration authorities" whether or not "the US immigration authorities [would] accept someone on to US soil with a 'potentially life threatening contagious disease.'"

astradt1 wrote:What was this 'potentially life threatening contagious disease'?

I don't betray confidences.

astradt1 wrote:Does the US have some special supersecret antibiotic or antiviral which is unknown to the rest of the world?

I've neither omniscience nor top secret "eyes only" security clearance.

astradt1 wrote:We, in the world outside the USA, are aware that the US does offer some treatments which have yet to receive licences for use, due to their as yet experimental and unproven results...........

We, in the world inside the USA, are aware that the US does offer numerous treatments which have yet to be available for use outside the USA, due to their medically advanced and complex characteristics.

by astra Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:13 am

Er sorry

Your FDA will pass a drug in 4 years

Our National Institution for Clinical Excellence may take up to 10 years.

This is from the kicking we took when the Germans (with the help of Doctors? who worked for the Nazi Party) foisted Thalidomide onto us, and nothing to do with advances (which happen here as well) or any complexity in manufacture or prescribing.

Although, if the big pharma get their way with the NHS this WILL change as "NICE" is to have it's teeth cropped!

by Shirina Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:20 am

and somehow CAN would just NOT be right!

LOL! Astra, I thought the same thing.

Actually ship designation letters aren't all that obvious even when they are pointed out. For instance, an AOE stands for "fast combat support ship." Yeah ... I don't know either.

They also have a tendency to say everything in Yoda-speak.

For instance, the term SSN stands for "ship submersible nuclear propulsion." Why not say "submersible ship?" Fortunately both begin with the same letters so you still get SS no matter which order you choose to say them in.

But BB stands for "battleship." Okay, so where does the extra B come from? Are they "Battle Boats?"

SSK also stands for "ship submersible diesel propulsion." Last I checked, "diesel" begins with a "D" not a "K". So it's very confusing for people who haven't studied the navy for quite awhile.

Cheers!

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:22 am

astra wrote:What does USV stand for

USV, United States Variety, an acronym of my creation the genesis of which is a long running conversation held on the defunct MSN UK Politics forum regarding an accurate and convenient designation for "citizen of the United States of America." Is such a person an American by herself/himself? No. Canadians, for instance, as citizens of a nation in the Americas, are also Americans, but are easily called Canadians to distinguish them from all other Americans. The same is true of Chileans, Brazilians, and Belizeans.

So we who are "citizens of the United States of America" I call "Americans USV", just because I'd rather be precise with 12 letters and 13 characters (including spaces) rather than with 33 letters and 39 characters (including spaces).

by astra Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:26 am

Just call yourselves "Yankee Doodle Dandys"

We would understand that!

(Don't make 'em like that nowadays)

by Shirina Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:27 am

Our National Institution for Clinical Excellence may take up to 10 years.

It's no secret that the American people have been both guinea pigs and primary financial contributors to medical research.

Not only do we get to take all of the new drugs first so Europeans can sit back and watch if anything nasty happens to us before legalizing the drug themselves, we also pay 50% more for the same drugs as you do in Europe - or even Canada.

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:46 am

astra wrote:Just call yourselves "Yankee Doodle Dandys"

My brother, don't ever call a South Carolinian a "Yankee" anything!

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:01 am

astra wrote:Longer answer: Because whatever can be medically fixed, cured, and/or treated can be fixed, cured, and/or treated best in America USV.

Any condition can be treated on the NHS, where do you get the idea that some treatments/conditions are ignored in this country? I AM interested!!

Any condition that can be treated in the UK can be covered (paid for) by NHS. That addresses availability of coverage, not availability of treatments.

I've never gotten the idea that the UK ignores anything. Although I've no personal anecdotes, I've no doubt that UK physicians sometimes refer patients to US facilities for treatments that they cannot provide in the UK, just as my friends' NZ physicians referred their patients to US facilities for treatment they could not provide in NZ. That's not ignoring; that's putting their patients first.

By the way, this statement stands as delivered today hereon: US health care coverage stinks like hell!

by oftenwrong Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:42 am

The measurement must be by whether Health Care is/was better in totalitarian countries.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:06 pm

My brother, don't ever call a South Carolinian a "Yankee" anything![/quote]

My father moved to S.C. a couple years ago...he says there's a LOT of yankees afoot there. He says the locals work cheap too....cheaper than Mexicans even.

He also said that God must hate the Carolinians because it's hotter there than it is in Florida.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:11 pm

As to the topic, the American system of health care provision IS broken. The mean quality of health care itself is the best in the world, IMO. As it is, health care providers are professionals who operate on a pay-for-services-rendered basis...like most any other professional service...and if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. You can't go to a mechanic and say "my car is sick, you should fix it for free"....why would anyone think going to a doctor should be any different?

by Shirina Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:59 pm

You can't go to a mechanic and say "my car is sick, you should fix it for free"....why would anyone think going to a doctor should be any different?

The comparison fails because you can't compare a car with a human life. That's why it should be different. And those who die quickly are the lucky ones. Most people would linger around for years, or even decades, with a painful condition that isn't fatal ... but they can't get the treatment they need.

If we pay taxes for the police to help protect our lives, I fail to see why paying taxes for the medical industry to do the same is somehow "wrong." And it is guaranteed that we will need treatment far more often than we'll need the police.

A car doesn't feel miserable when its transmission blows ... it doesn't feel pain, or the emotional consequences that transcend the physical when dealing with disability.

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:15 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
You can't go to a mechanic and say "my car is sick, you should fix it for free"....why would anyone think going to a doctor should be any different?

Because many ones fail to comprehend that free health care has never been free (line borrowed from Curtis Mayfield, hear it below).

Two friends vacationed in Ontario recently, Toronto and environs. Due to a mix-up, a pre-paid-for tour was not delivered as promised. The tour operators apologized and took my friends' contact information to refund the tour cost, which had been paid by credit card.

A short time after returning home in the US, my friends noticed that their credit card account's balance had been adjusted in the amount of the refund and were satisfied. Much to their surprise, there was more coming.

About a year after their time in Ontario, my friends received a check in the mail, in US funds, drawn on a US bank, totaling nearly two hundred dollars, maybe one hundred eighty or one hundred ninety dollars. Turns out that during their nearly two week stay in Ontario, they had spent a lot of money, all on their credit card (the same one used to pre-pay the tour), and all taxed at the time of purchase at Ontario's exorbitant sales tax rate (to Americans USV) of perhaps fifteen or maybe even twenty percent (I got steamed in Virginia Beach paying ten percent). Turns out also that a substantial portion of Ontario's sales tax revenues goes to partially fund Ontario's universal health care coverage. Since my friends were (and are) neither Ontarians nor Canadians of any stripe, someone in the tour company had arranged to have that portion (maybe one third to one half) of the accumulated sales taxes they had paid in Ontario, the portion that funds universal health care, also refunded to them. There was a letter accompanying the check which explained this, reasoning that, since they weren’t covered by Ontario's universal health care, they shouldn’t have been charged for it.

That was a wake up call for me. One hundred eighty dollars for less than two weeks works out to more than three hundred sixty dollars per month, so Ontario's free universal health care may be universal, but it ain't free, Clyde, and it's never been free.

Curtis Mayfield, New World Order, 1996 (his last album, recorded after the accident); listen to the second verse.
http://www.videodetective.com/music-videos/new-world-order-video/45468

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:56 pm

I still do not understand why a PROFESSIONAL who has spent decades of his or her life and incurred ridiculous debt in learning to be a doctor should be expected to provide his or her services as a physician free of charge simply out of the goodness of the heart.

The analogy, Shirina, is absolutely apropos to this conversation. I do not agree with the idea that anyone should be compelled into servitude to provide professional services. Doctors may wish to voluntarily offer their services for the poor, indigent and those unable to pay however, I do not believe that they are obligated to make someone else's problems or lot in life their own problems...especially as an act of governance.

You don't pay taxes to pay for medical treatment. We've discussed how I feel about a public option before and I think we agree that we need a system of PUBLIC hospitals and health care providers paid for with tax dollars open to bona fide citizens for care. That, however, is not what we have and expecting private individuals and companies to behave as if we, as taxpayers, deserve something from them is just erroneous.

by ROB Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:56 pm

Shirina wrote:
You can't go to a mechanic and say "my car is sick, you should fix it for free"....why would anyone think going to a doctor should be any different?

The comparison fails because you can't compare a car with a human life. That's why it should be different. And those who die quickly are the lucky ones. Most people would linger around for years, or even decades, with a painful condition that isn't fatal ... but they can't get the treatment they need.

Oz's comparison does not fail, because Oz is not comparing "a car with a human life", an obvious fact that you fail to see and fail to comprehend.

Oz is comparing money required and paid for services rendered; i.e., Oz is comparing the money required and paid for service rendered in the maintenance/repair of a car with the money required and paid for services rendered in the maintenance/repair of a human.

The disparity, if any, is in the amount of money; in many cases, the money required and paid for service rendered in the maintenance/repair of a human far exceeds the money required and paid for services rendered in the maintenance/repair of a human.

After all, in both cases, a substantial portion of that cost is the human labor required for the service provided, and the training required of and excellence in service provided expected from the heart surgeon who performs open heart, triple or quadruple bypass surgery on the heart of your beloved family member far exceeds the training required of and excellence in service provided expected from the mechanic who performs open engine, cylinder or crankshaft replacement on the engine of your beloved family car. Heart surgeons' services cost a lot partially because their training costs a lot. Look up and compare the costs for medical school and mechanic school.

Shirina wrote:
If we pay taxes for the police to help protect our lives, I fail to see why paying taxes for the medical industry to do the same is somehow "wrong." And it is guaranteed that we will need treatment far more often than we'll need the police.

Ontarians pay fifteen to twenty percent sales tax. They dance to the music, and they pay to the piper. Are you ready to pay to the piper in North Carolina for the privilege of dancing to the music in North Carolina? A simple "yes" or "no" answer will reveal if you're prepared to walk the talk.

Shirina wrote:
A car doesn't feel miserable when its transmission blows ... it doesn't feel pain, or the emotional consequences that transcend the physical when dealing with disability.

All true, and all irrelevant.

by Shirina Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:50 am

I still do not understand why a PROFESSIONAL who has spent decades of his or her life and incurred ridiculous debt in learning to be a doctor should be expected to provide his or her services as a physician free of charge simply out of the goodness of the heart.

I didn't say anyone should or would work for free. I don't expect doctors to volunteer and then go home to a cardboard box under an overpass. Do doctors in countries with NHS work for free? No, they do not. Therefore, you're offering up a strawman as a rebuttal.

by Shirina Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:04 am

Oz is comparing money required and paid for services rendered; i.e., Oz is comparing the money required and paid for service rendered in the maintenance/repair of a car with the money required and paid for services rendered in the maintenance/repair of a human.

Yes, and this comparison is done by taking the human component out of the equation. There is no morality involved in letting a car fester and rust away in your back yard nor is there any morality involved in sending a car off to be junked. Where humans are involved, there is morality, and one has to ask which form of morality takes greater precedent? The morality of profit and money? Or the morality of human suffering and indirect torture?

Since we ARE talking about the "maintenance of a human," as you put it, then removing the human component from the equation is a disingenuous argument. Boiling it down to mere dollars is an escape hatch to prevent the discussion of how ethical it is for any society to allow people to literally live or die - or worse, exist in perpetual pain - based on a person's ability to pay for a bloated, bureaucracy-laden health care system. When you're getting charged $50 for a common bag of ice, one should realize that the health care industry has become like those stories you hear of the government paying $100 for a screw driver.

Ontarians pay fifteen to twenty percent sales tax. They dance to the music, and they pay to the piper. Are you ready to pay to the piper in North Carolina for the privilege of dancing to the music in North Carolina? A simple "yes" or "no" answer will reveal if you're prepared to walk the talk.

As long as the tax isn't on food. It's easy to turn up one's nose at the idea of NHS when you either a) are healthy, b) have money or c) both.

But when you're staring down a dark tunnel of 60 years of agonizing pain with very little recourse or hope of any substantial help, paying a little more for my luxuries is insignificant compared to a pain-free life.

by ROB Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 am

Shirina wrote:
Oz is comparing money required and paid for services rendered; i.e., Oz is comparing the money required and paid for service rendered in the maintenance/repair of a car with the money required and paid for services rendered in the maintenance/repair of a human.

Yes, and this comparison is done by taking the human component out of the equation.

No it's not. There is no human component in the equation to take out of the equation. Equations deal with numbers, and money is counted numerically.

Shirina wrote:
There is no morality involved in letting a car fester and rust away in your back yard nor is there any morality involved in sending a car off to be junked.

True and irrelevant.

Shirina wrote:
Where humans are involved, there is morality

True and irrelevant.

Shirina wrote:
one has to ask which form of morality takes greater precedent?

No one does not have to ask "which form of morality takes greater [precedence]."

Shirina wrote:
The morality of profit and money?

There is no "morality of profit and money." One need never ask oneself about something which doesn't exist.

Shirina wrote:
Or the morality of human suffering

I don't ask myself about "the morality of human suffering"; conversely, if I can do something about human suffering, I do something about it.

James, an apostle of Jesus the Christ, of whom our Father said, "this is my beloved Son; hear ye him", teaches us that, when action is needed to alleviate suffering, our job is to act, not to talk. To ask oneself a question is to talk.

Shirina wrote:
and indirect torture?

Who have I subjected to "indirect torture?" Please be specific.

Shirina wrote:
Since we ARE talking about the "maintenance of a human," as you put it, then removing the human component from the equation is a disingenuous argument.

No it's not. It's truth. Dollars have no "human component."

Shirina wrote:
Boiling it down to mere dollars is an escape hatch

No it's not. I'm not "boiling" anything "down" to anything; it's already "dollars", and not "mere dollars", but substantial dollars, which I pay out regularly.

I am reality driven; one component of my reality is that "money doesn't grow on trees."

Shirina wrote:
to prevent the discussion of how ethical it is for any society to allow people to literally live or die

I've not prevented any discussions. You've not been prevented from any discussing anything. I've not allowed anyone "to literally live or die." Those with whom I interact have not allowed anyone "to literally live or die."

Shirina wrote:
or worse, exist in perpetual pain

I've not caused anyone to "exist in perpetual pain." Those with whom I interact have not caused anyone "exist in perpetual pain."

Shirina wrote:
based on a person's ability to pay for a bloated, bureaucracy-laden health care system.

The US health care system is neither "bloated" nor "bureaucracy laden." US health care coverage is “bloated", "bureaucracy laden", and broke like hell.

Shirina wrote:
When you're getting charged $50 for a common bag of ice, one should realize that the health care industry has become like those stories you hear of the government paying $100 for a screw driver.

No one shouldn't. When one (this specific one) pays bucketfuls of money per month for health care insurance and gets treated to co-pays of between $30.00 a pop for clinic visits to more than $2,000.00 a pop for necessary procedures, then one doesn’t need "those stories" to know that US health care coverage is broke like hell.

Shirina wrote:
Ontarians pay fifteen to twenty percent sales tax. They dance to the music, and they pay to the piper. Are you ready to pay to the piper in North Carolina for the privilege of dancing to the music in North Carolina? A simple "yes" or "no" answer will reveal if you're prepared to walk the talk.

As long as the tax isn't on food.

I don't know on what Ontarians pay sales tax. I await your "yes" or "no."

Shirina wrote:
It's easy to turn up one's nose at the idea of NHS when you either a) are healthy, b) have money or c) both.

Since I'm neither "healthy" nor do I "have money", why do you mention this irrelevant opinion to me?

Shirina wrote:
But when you're staring down a dark tunnel of 60 years of agonizing pain with very little recourse or hope of any substantial help, paying a little more for my luxuries is insignificant compared to a pain-free life.

I haven't a clue about what you're saying.

by astra Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:37 am

Ontarians pay fifteen to twenty percent sales tax.

I haven't a clue about what you're saying

Rock!

I have ALREADY stated HOW MUCH WE EACH PAY INTO THE NHS £17.50 per WEEK what's that 25 dollars. Compare my COST to your insurance and there is NO comparison! The EXTRA you are paying is going straight into the insurance companies coffers - for nothing else than corporate greed!!

We are short of nothing - do NOT believe the scare stories that you hear! My AVASTIN costs over $4.000 dollars - £2.300 a MONTH and I pay no more money into the kitty. Everyone pays into this. OK so Ontario pays purchase tax! To do so here, is outlawed in UK by the EU pi55takers! I have payed into this system for over 40 years, so am getting catchup! Yes YES we have "executives in our NHS who are right now trying to be apprentice insurance company reps. I happen to think that these scum should be SHOT, and if I could, would invite you over for some target practice!

Thing is we get what we need when we need it - it was very bad in the 80s due to governmental mismanagement and tampering, looking for the cheap, fast buck.

by ROB Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:00 pm

astra wrote:
Rock!

... WE EACH PAY INTO THE NHS £17.50 per WEEK what's that 25 dollars.

Maybe $30.00, which would be a bit more than $120.00 per month, which compares very favorably to the $600.00 per month paid by my family now. Even if the $120.00 is individual, which would require multiplying by the number of individuals in my legal household, I'd still save a bundle.

US health care coverage is broke like hell.

astra wrote:
Compare my COST to your insurance and there is NO comparison!

True that.

astra wrote:
The EXTRA you are paying is going straight into the insurance companies coffers - for nothing else than corporate greed!!

I don't know where the extra is going. I do know where the extra is not going; it's not going to offset or eliminate my co-pays, and it's not going to ensure that the medications and dosages paid for are the medications and dosages prescribed by my doctors, which amounts to accountants' decisions superseding medical doctors' decisions (and I betcha ain't nar one of those accountants ever sniffed the inside of a medical school).

astra wrote:
We are short of nothing - do NOT believe the scare stories that you hear!

I don't. I believe the true stories that I hear, including these true stories:

New Zealand (Auckland, the most populous city) was short of the life-preserving treatments that my New Zealand friends needed to preserve their lives. My friends are alive and healthy today because San Francisco had the treatment.

The Netherlands (Amsterdam) was short of the life-preserving procedure that my friend's Dutch aunt needed to preserve her life. My friend's aunt is alive and functioning today because Dallas had the procedure.

As stipulated before, I read that Detroit had the treatment/procedure that Quebec lacked desired by Quebec's governor general (with the disclaimer that it could have been Ontario, and it could have been the premier).

As the old saying goes, "facts is facts"; since I am reality-driven, I pay attention to facts.

astra wrote:
My AVASTIN costs over $4.000 dollars - £2.300 a MONTH and I pay no more money into the kitty. Everyone pays into this.

Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution (see it here) delineates the delegated powers of Congress, which cannot exercise authority in areas in which it is not authorized to exercise authority; thus, Congress cannot pass a law requiring any citizen or resident of the United States of America to participate in and pay for any interstate commerce activity. To put it simply, Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but Congress cannot coerce interstate commerce.

The Interstate Commerce clause was the authority relied upon by Congress to pass the portion of the health care reform law that was ruled unconstitutional by a federal circuit court of appeals. That's the portion that would have allowed the federal government to require that everyone pay into the kitty.

astra wrote:
OK so Ontario pays purchase tax!

Sales tax. To American USV sensibilities, exorbitant sales tax.

astra wrote:
To do so here, is outlawed in UK by the EU pi55takers!

So assert your sovereignty and get out of the EU. The United States of America is a member of the United Nations, NATO, the Pan-American conference, G12 (or whatever), SEATO, and Lord knows what else, and neither my fellow Texans nor I have ceded our Texas sovereignty or our United States sovereignty to any damned body. Y'all might take a tip from us on that one.

And get y'allselves a couple of CVNs, If Germany or France, the EU bully boys, should try to check y'all whilst y'all are exercising y'all's hard-earned sovereignty, park a CVN off their coasts, in international waters, and run through a few Super Hornet launch and recovery evolutions, just for practice, you understand, and watch the bully boys back off an leave y'all alone.

I trust neither Germany nor (especially) France as far as I can throw them.

by Sponsored content